On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:49:39PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:33 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 12:22 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that > > > > > provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in > > > > > so > > > > > far as it applied to the Debian package. Right? > > > > > > > > Note the wording makes it pretty much apply to everything, including the > > > > renamed version debian would redistribute, so, for example, derivative > > > > distributions should use yet another name... > > > > > > Ah, I see the problem, but I'm sure that's unintentional and could be > > > fixed. > > > > > > However, this is now moot as it seems others have persuaded him to use > > > separate copyright (LGPL, as before) and trademark licences. > > > > To have a trademark license, ion3 should be a trademark in the first > > place. Is it ? > > It's not a *registered* trademark, but it may yet be a trademark, as the > author claims. I don't think we really want to test that claim, do we?
IANAL, but I think you can hardly have a "trademark license" if it's not registered. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
