On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:37:21AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > really the free source), and any command-name limitation should only > be done via trademark.
IANAL, TINLA. Trademark protection can sometimes be enforced without the actual filing of a trademark application, depending on use, although that point is moot to this discussion. Whether or not a trademark on a filename is enforceable is arguable, although in my non-professional opinion, if a user reasonably expected that a particular command line would call a particular program, and another program were substituted instead, it might constitute the exact type of consumer confusion that trademark law is designed to prevent. I'd venture that a command-line program called 'oracle', designed to run a database, would be challenged pretty quickly. (And I wouldn't bet money on the 'new' oracle.) I think Debian needs to think about a couple of things: (1) If there were a trademark on a filename, would you agree to use another name? (2) Would this make the copyright non-free? You would have the separation you're looking for, but still wouldn't necessarily have the right to use the same filename. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/
pgpZbUbW7JLFt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
