Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3
John Halton <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2008 12:05 AM, MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > If we have named Firefux the modified version of Firefox, I doubt the
> > > Mozilla foundation would have let that pass.
> > There's various other reasons for that and it wouldn't have been covered
> > by a prohibition on calling it Firefox or something easily confused with
> > Firefox. (How often do people use the other f-word to mean a fox?)
> Trade marks protect against use not only of identical marks, but also
> of similar marks where there is a risk of confusion. So Firefux would
> almost certainly infringe Mozilla's trade mark rights in Firefox.
Indeed! But it would not have been covered by a TrueCrypt-like naming
clause in the *copyright* licence!
That's the point I was trying to make: there's more (and less) to
trademarks than just simple naming. Copyrights are not trademarks and
using one to do the other's job is often messy, like hammering in screws.
Some stuff that shouldn't be covered will be, while letting others escape.
Hope that explains,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct