On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 01:37:06PM -0600, Paul Wise wrote:
> > I'm happy to attach a first complete draft of such a policy, and I'm
> > looking for comment on it.
>
> Some of the things that are explicitly allowed by the policy are
> things that AFAIK are not restricted by trademark law, is the purpose
> of including those to reduce the number of questions from people who
> aren't well informed about the restrictions in trademark law?
Yes, and in my experience that is very much needed. For example, we
already get quite a number of requests at trademark@d.o which are, in
fact, fully covered by nominative usage. As such, they are useless
requests but they still come in. Documenting more visibly when they are
not needed will reduce our load in handling them.
> Does the domain name restriction mean that sites like these will have
> to rename themselves?
Peter is right on this: we should give them explicit permission. But
note that this part, in most cases, is a no-op change wrt the current
policy, which already restricts the usage of the debian name in domain
names by others.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature