On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 10:58:44PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: > 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.
Well, not having your name taken off of your work (without your permission) is generally considered an intrinsic right. Not having people use a logo that could be potentially confused as the logo of your company--is that, too, considered a right? Author's right to credit doesn't necessarily imply that "Coke has an intrinsic right to not having people put their logo on a cup of coffee, and therefore that restriction is free". I don't have a strong opinion on this, but arguments one way or the other would be interesting. -- Glenn Maynard
