On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:25:55PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thijs Kinkhorst writes ("Re: trademark policy draft"):
> > On Wed, August 1, 2012 18:54, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > We can choose to abandon our trademark and make it indefensible, but we
> > > should do that intentionally and not under an illusion that we're just
> > > creating a better usage policy.
>
> I would not be in favour of this.
FWIW, I agree with Ian's position here.
Generally speaking, I think there is room in Free Software for project
marks and that, in principle, there is nothing wrong with defending
them. As observed elsewhere in this thread, it is just hard to defend
them in a "reasonable" way, given that the law is what it is. Oddly
enough, trademark policies that try to embrace Free Software principle
are still relatively uncharted territory, which is slowly getting better
in recent years. By giving it a try, working together with lawyers that
do understand Free Software, I think we can actually contribute
something useful for other Free Software projects out there.
Down to the specificities of Debian procedures, I consider my duty to
take care of Debian assets, including trademarks. I would not take the
responsibility of acting in a way that --- according to our legal
advisors --- might endanger them..
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature