[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > There are other domains which are imho more problematic than those > mentioned in this thread. Anyway, before we can enforce our > trademark, we actually need an updated and coherent trademark policy.
I'm disappointed by your inaction. The current permission statement does not permit any use which seems to cover this case. http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19980306a Further, the SPI Trademark Committee charter resolution suggests that trademark disputes have been resolved in the past. Why do you think that updating the policy is *required* before action? http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-2003-06-03.bmh.1 Please cc Greg on the material you send to the next DPL about this topic, to save the next DPL a step and everyone some time. Have you started coordinating takeover of the undisputed domains? If not, why did you ask "Do you think we should do anything about this?" if you have no intention to act on it? The trademark committee seems to follow in part from your statements to debian-project in September 2003. What is the state of current work on the policy? Were the offers of Derek Neighbors and Andrew M.A. Cater taken up? I've just scanned the "Bits from the DPL" postings and it didn't appear since October 2003. When did spi-trademark last report to SPI? -- MJR/slef http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
