Re: Inbound trademark policy, round 3
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Uoti Urpala writes ("Re: Inbound trademark policy, round 3"):
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > 1. DFSG principles should apply.
> >
> > IMO taking this as a starting point is completely wrong. DFSG guarantees
> > that incompetent and malicious people may freely modify the software.
>
> You made this point at length in the previous discussion. It seemed
> to me that your point of view was not well supported by other people.
> As I said, what I wrote in my previous document was what I thought we
> had a rough consensus on.
Some people objected to what I said, but much of that was based on
objectively false views/claims on their part. Looking back at the thread
now, I see little consensus on any real policy questions; much of the
thread is about trying to get the objective facts right, and there isn't
much discussion about possible policies based on those facts.
> I'd encourage other members of the project not to get distracted by
> Uoti's points. I think there is no need to rebut them any more.
I don't think anyone has managed to write a good rebuttal to them. If
you disagree, give a link to a post which in your view does that.
Reply to: