> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in > > roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > 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. You're changing the subject from what Brian was talking about: the set of "trademarks" has only a small area of overlap with the set of "logos". Sure, there are logos which don't identify anything, but those logos aren't trademarks. Anyways, could you describe a serious scenario that illustrates this danger to software freedom that you're so concerned about? [I saw the scenario where you proposed that we shouldn't discriminate against fraud, but the philosophy behind your argument would have us declare the GPL non-free -- so that doesn't seem like a serious issue.] Thanks, -- Raul
