[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: license issuse in qterm

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:10:34 +0000 John Halton wrote:

> On Jan 10, 2008 8:52 AM, Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> wrote:
> > >       and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol
> > >       description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other
> > >       than "ssh" or "Secure Shell".
> >
> > This may be a problem.  However, to me it seems this just clarifies how
> > he thinks about the use of his trademarks.  They're probably not
> > registered, but they still have some protection (assuming he is the
> > right person to claim them).  If he wants to use these names as
> > trademarks, AFAIK he is allowed to.
> I agree. The restriction relates to (probably unregistered) trade
> marks rather than copyright. It may be inconvenient in some
> circumstances, and could be expressed more clearly, but it's not
> non-free.

IMO, the problem was not non-freeness, but GPL-compatibility.

This is a name-change restriction, phrased as if it were a condition
for getting copyright-related permissions (because it's placed directly
under the copyright notice, inside what looks very much like a
copyright permission notice), even though it's related to unregistered
Is such a restriction compatible with the GNU GPL?


 New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpXqgpLXbjWa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: