Re: trademark licenses and DFSG: a summary
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:09:56PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Craig Small <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Now, the only difference is the fix. For a license it is removing the
> > package for a trademark it is renaming, maybe. Sentences like that are
> > exactly why our proposed trademark policy should be what it is.
> I'm confused. What distinction are you drawing of license versus
> trademark? Trademark holders can and do grant licenses on those marks.
> It seems you may be discussing a distinction of copyright versus
> trademark, but I'm guessing at this point.
Yes, that's correct. A particular license that basically says they can
change it in future to anything they want is bad. A trademark license
that says pretty much the same thing "you're doing it wrong, you cannot
use our trademark anymore" is similiarly bad.
My comment is the impact of either is different, but they're both bad.
I hope its clearer now.
Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org
GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5