[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: no networking in riscv-qemu... use pppd?

2017-04-19 23:25 GMT+02:00 Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org>:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:15:50PM +0200, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>> 2017-04-19 22:11 GMT+02:00 Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org>:
>> >
>> > That is still being worked on. A proposal for a public trademark
>> > license (which is intended to replace the RISC-V foundation's
>> > current "trademark usage" text) has been submitted to the
>> > foundation's executive director, who in turn is discussing the
>> > proposal with the foundation's lawyers.
>> I see.  Would this prevent from packaging it (at least the manual)?
> I am not a lawyer so I can only describe my layman's understanding
> which might well be wrong.  To my understanding there shouldn't be
> a trademark problem in packaging the official RISC-V ISA manual
> using "RISC-V" as part of the package name, as the official RISC-V
> manual is published by the RISC-V trademark owner respectively is
> named using the trademark with the approval of the trademark owner,
> and AIUI referring to a trademarked "product" by the trademark is
> permitted use of a trademark.
> What could possibly be a problem with regard to trademark law is
> packaging a modified version and using the trademark to name this
> modified version, e.g. call it the "RISC-V ISA manual" when it in
> fact is a "some-architecture-that-is-mostly-but-not-really-RISC-V
> ISA manual".  That's just the difference between a copyright and a
> trademark license: a copyright license can allow distribution of
> modified versions, but one might have to choose a different name
> for the modified version to avoid a trademark violation.  This is
> btw. exactly the reason why we for a long time had iceweasel
> instead of firefox in Debian.

The situation with Firefox/iceweasel came to my mind while reading
your, before reaching the end.

At worst it would be a non-free document, like GDFL with invariant
sections, I guess.

In any case, I also don't consider it that useful to package, at least
at this point in time.

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Reply to: