On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 03:32:30AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > > No, the first refers to using the author's name (such as Buddha Buck or > > Darren > > Benham). The second refers to the name of the software it's self (grep or > > sendmail). > > I should have seen that... What confused me about 3.2 was the mention > of "trademarks" in connection with what may be restricted. > > OK, then what about my second question about those parts... > > Should other identifiers, like icons or logos affiliated with a > software, be able to be restricted in the same way as names? > > I can write a DFSG-compliant license that says "If you distribute > derived works of the WidgetFactory game, they must not be named > 'WidgetFactory'." That is allowed by 3.6.2. Could I go farther to say > in addition "...and they must be modified to use a different logo that > those included in the WidgetFactory*.xpm source files." The purpose is > the same as requiring a name-change: to protect the integrity of the > "original" software.
That's a very good point. My personal opinion is that we should allow authors to protect Trademarks in this way _only_ in derived or modified versions. If you want to distribute the pristine source, the author should allow you to distribute it with Trademarks and all. I'm sure if some one took the Linux kernel source and derived some strange off the wall new kernel from it, Linus wouldn't be too happy with it being called Linux any more. -- ----- -- - -------- --------- ---- ------- ----- - - --- -------- Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------ -- ----- - - ------- ------- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
