* MJ Ray (mjr@dsl.pipex.com) wrote: > On 2004-05-07 07:31:27 +0100 Ean Schuessler <ean@brainfood.com> wrote: > >With the Debian trademark we want use that is almost entirely > >unenforced > >except for a few particular (and somewhat poorly defined) situations. > > The only well-defined situation I can see at the moment is when > someone attempts to claim debian association, backing or endorsement > fraudulently. I believe that is covered adequately by other laws > everywhere where we could enforce it. Is that correct? Uh, or they use the Debian trademark for something that's not Debian at all.. That's not necessairly claiming it as backing or endorsement from Debian. > Not only is it not very Debian, but accurate use of the Debian mark to > refer to our Debian doesn't look like something we can stop with > trademarking in the UK: I don't get it. Doesn't this mean, also, that in the UK people *could* sell shirts with the Coke logo on them? In which case it would seem to me that the reasons above for having a trademark in the UK would be perfectly legit and very reasonable and enforceable, and their intended use? Or is the problem with the Coke logo really with it being copyrighted, in which case having the trademark for the reasons above and the copyright with a different license than the Coke folks do would seem perfectly reasonable and, again, seemingly enforcable unless there's some reason you can't enforce a trademark unless you're very strict with the copyright on it? The two would seem like seperate issues to me. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature