>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joel> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 10:33:30AM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote: >> How can the use of ``NetBSD'' "dilute" the trademark, when it refers >> to a piece of the same software ? Joel> Basically, saying "Debian GNU/NetBSD" could be read as implying Joel> "We're using NetBSD" rather than "We're using parts of NetBSD", Joel> and if read as the former, is not a true and factual statement, Joel> thus (possibly) causing issues with dilution of trademark, by Joel> using the name to refer to something other than it's intended Joel> meaning. Eh? The ``Debian GNU/'' part is exactly what distinguishes it from ``NetBSD'' -- the system taken as a whole. For me it is naturaly to think that ``NetBSD'' means NetBSD and ``Debian GNU/NetBSD'' means some derivative. Isn't that clear ? What would one think had been the reasons to add additionall qualifiers to the plain ``NetBSD'' if not for because it is NOT NetBSD ? Does The NetBSD Foundation actually claim dilution of the trademark ? Is there any evidence of that ? Like the amount of losses they have suffered because of someone took the Debian GNU/NetBSD operating system for the NetBSD operating system ? Joel> Whereas saying "We use <X>, <Y>, and <Z> from NetBSD" is true Joel> and factual, and uses 'NetBSD' solely in a context of referring Joel> to the body of software produced by the NetBSD project's efforts Joel> - which is what the trademark is intended to refer to, and thus, Joel> is not a dilution of it. I do not question the use of ``NetBSD'' to refer to the the body of software produced by the NetBSD project (FWIW, a huge amount of code in what NetBSD refers to is NOT produced by NetBSD project). The fact is that we do not use ``NetBSD'', we use ``Debian GNU/NetBSD'', which merely contains the substring ``NetBSD''. I'd really like to see a more friendly attitude from TNF. And by "friendly attitude" I'd rather understand not making an attack based on unsubstantiated claims in the first place, than bending over. ~velco
