Re: New Ion3 licence
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:49:39PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > > But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that
> > > > > provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in so
> > > > > far as it applied to the Debian package. Right?
> > > >
> > > > Note the wording makes it pretty much apply to everything, including the
> > > > renamed version debian would redistribute, so, for example, derivative
> > > > distributions should use yet another name...
> > >
> > > Ah, I see the problem, but I'm sure that's unintentional and could be
> > > fixed.
> > >
> > > However, this is now moot as it seems others have persuaded him to use
> > > separate copyright (LGPL, as before) and trademark licences.
> >
> > To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first
> > place. Is it ?
>
> It's not a *registered* trademark, but it may yet be a trademark, as the
> author claims. I don't think we really want to test that claim, do we?
IANAL, but I think you can hardly have a "trademark license" if it's not
registered.
Mike
Reply to: