On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06:37:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Just put a "This copyright license does not grant a trademark license" > disclaimer after your choice of standard license, and I think we're set, > right?
I don't think that's necessary -- I don't know that it's a problem, but... A trademark means something -- and as long as people use it in a fashion where it means that thing, there's no problem. Everybody already has a license to do that. So, yeah, a copyright license doesn't grant people a trademark license, because they already have a license. This is true even for ultra restrictive trademerks. For example, if Frobozz(R) can only be used to reference Genuine Frobozzic(TM) Flish Drumpets, manufactured at the primary Frobozzic facility during the hours of 2-3pm on alternate tuesdays when the relative humidity is between 75% and 83% and the year is a prime number, then it's still possible for anyone to use the word Frobozz as long as they're using it to refer to the Flish Drumpets which meet those silly criteria. So, for example, you could have an free software manual page discussing the horrid side effects of exposure to Frobozz Flish Drumpets, and that would be legal. [That said, if you can't get people to use your trademark to mean what you claim it means then you aren't doing it right, and you'll lose the ability to enforce your trademark agains them -- so if anyone really tried to do something as silly as my example I doubt that the trademark would last for very long.] -- Raul
