On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:40:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Daniel Glassey wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > >From: Dom Lachowicz > > >Date: 20 July 2004 22:08:34 BST > > >To: Andy Korvemaker, abiword-dev@abisource.com > > >Subject: Re: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable? > [...] > > >For the record, I've recently acquired the AbiWord trademarks and > > >whatnot. I haven't had a chance to update the TM information on the > > >website. > > Hello, > > Thank you very much for shedding some light on this issue! > > I have some questions below. > > > >To be expressly clear here for any Debian guys that read this message: > > > > > >Within reason, I don't care if you use "AbiWord" vs. "AbiWord > > >Personal." In fact, I'd prefer it if you used "AbiWord." > > > > > >Within reason, I don't care if you use the "official" artwork or the > > >"personal" artwork. In fact, I'd prefer it if you used the "official" > > >artwork. > > > > > >I do begin to care if you use my trademarks to promote other products, > > >or in ways that disparage my trademarks or products. If you "forked" > > >AbiWord, you couldn't use the trademarks. But you're clearly not going > > >to do that. The USPTO has more info and case law on this sort of thing. > > > > > >Debian and the other distros are clearly distributing AbiWord, and > > >providing a beneficial service to the community. Even though Debian's > > >version might have a few patches against our "mainline" branch, I don't > > >believe it constitutes a "fork." As such, I think that it is fine (if > > >not preferable) for you guys to use the official name and artwork in > > >your distribution. > > > > > >So, you have my blessing to call your AbiWord + patches "AbiWord". You > > >can use the official artwork too. > > One of Debian's "freeness" criteria is that licenses not be specific to > us[1]. The Open Source Initiaive has a similar criterion, which says that > licenses must not be specific to a "product". To be precise: > > 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product > > The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being > part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted > from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the > program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed > should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with > the original software distribution.[1] > > Debian wants our users to enjoy the same freedoms we do, and we consider > our users to be -- potentially, anyway -- the "general public".
Huh, i am bluffed here. Not sure i understand the whole issue, but i think we consider licences of the type : you may use, modify, distribute, whatever this software as you wish, as long as you don't call it <foo>. as free. How is this here different ? Or did i misunderstood or is the distribution of software at hand here, and not only the name we give it ? Friendly, Sven Luther
