* MJ Ray (mjr@dsl.pipex.com) wrote: > On 2004-05-09 23:57:23 +0100 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > >They're not oppressive and Debian certainly *should* use them to avoid > >dillution of the Debian mark. > > They are oppressive. Have you read them? Have you looked at cases in > this field? I have a good idea what they do, and I know that we can control how oppressive or not they are by how we enforce them and permit their use. > The Debian project is not a traditional software publisher. It is not > likely to create a traditional reseller channel, with agreements > permitting the use of the trademark and so on, or at least I hope it's > not! No, we're not traditional, but that doesn't mean there are no cases where we'd want to enforce our trademark. Certainly there won't be as many cases but that's not the same thing at all. If we don't have our trademark registered I seriously doubt we'll have much room in court to enforce it at all. > >Provided trademark law handles all the > >situations we need it to, I agree that we shouldn't need to have a > >restrictive copyright license. > > I consider that we do not need trademarks, so we at least agree that > the logo licences are buggy. Probably, though I havn't actually read it yet yet. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature