On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > Yet unlike the software patent or export case, it *is* within the power of > > the software writer to grant the permission that's being denied. He can > > say "I don't care if you misrepresent me. Go ahead and don't give me > > credit." > > The "other obligations" that demand credit are coming from him in the same > > way that the obligation to obey Debian's trademark comes from Debian. > That would cause Debian to lose its trademark rights over the logo in > question. It's a defensible position that Debian should own no > trademarks, though not one I share. I invite you to argue it, or to > cease trying to bring it about silently.
My point was exactly the opposite. I'm not saying that Debian should grant trademark permissions--I'm saying that, going by the precedent of the scientific credit example in the FAQ, Debian doesn't have to grant any trademark permissions for it to count as open source. In the FAQ example, the scientist can say "this doesn't excuse you from following outside obligations, such as giving credit". That doesn't disqualify it from being open source even though the scientist could waive those obligations himself. Likewise, Debian should be able to say "this doesn't excuse you from other obligations such as trademark laws", and it's still open source--even though the trademark obligations could be (but aren't) waived by Debian.
