Not quite contradicting what was written, but it isn't quite so simple... Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > trademarks are a no-op. The DFSG allows for name-change clauses (DFSG 4). > This allows us to modify and redistribute without infringing trademarks > if need be. No freedom issue here.
The trademark-related freedom problems I've seen most often are uses of a copyright licence to support a 'super-trademark' either by termination clause, or simply including software which doesn't follow DFSG (logo artwork and so on). I think super-trademark terminations were one of the inspirations for the suggested Dictator Test. By the way, are there still a few countries not in the Berne Union? Maybe copyright isn't completely cross-jurisdiction, but it seems near enough. [...] > Patents on the other hand are completely jurisdiction dependant. [...] Not completely (TRIPS, WTO, bilaterals, blah) but enough to be annoying. > [...] If it is not under > active enforcement, and is under a free license, there is no reason not > to have it in main. Sounds sensible to me. Anyone knows case law well? What might happen if a submarine patent in main starts being actively enforced? It looks to me as if the usual opening move is to send a take-down notice: http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/lake/index.en.html Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
