Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>On the other hand, if you take the source code to GCC and format it >>>into the shape of a Coca Cola trademark, then you can't use it for >>>selling soft drinks. Does this mean that GCC is not free? >> >>No, no more than the fact that you can't modify the source to GCC to >>contain the source to Visual C++ (even independently of the fact that >>GCC is copyleft; I'm referring to the fact that you can't distribute the >>source of Visual C++). > > Sure I can. If I happen to independently reimplement Visual C++, then > I own the copyright on that. Microsoft does not.
Granted, though you'd have a heck of a time proving it if the code was identical. However, I was referring to modifying GCC to include the source, meaning copying that source from VC++. >>This does not apply, of course, to the one kind of requirement that >>DFSG4 allows: requiring that derived works carry a different name. > > But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in > roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless. That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that identifies a project. "GCC", "grub", "Linux", and "Apache" are all names. A logo is not a name. A name does not, of course, need to be in Roman characters (TeX is not, though it is commonly romanized), nor pronounceable (many projects choose names with dubious pronounceability). However, a logo is in no way equivalent to a project name, and I do not believe a requirement such as "You must use a different logo for modified versions." passes the DFSG, nor should it. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
