On 2003-09-21 03:20:46 +0100 Benj. Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
was concerned that the attorney client relationship (Greg's firm is engaging SPI as a client) meant that we might want to not have the discussion itself open to the world.
Of course, this may well be the case, but then there should be a public discussion too where the committee members can keep the masses informed and seek opinions..
Since I certainly was terse last time, I want to emphasize that the committee is open for other people to join.
The SPI resolution is somewhat hazy on amount of work. I am reluctant to be dead-weight. As long as any representatives of the project are committed to being representative of the project, I have faith in them. It would be good if they would start talking to -project and/or -legal about what's going on, though. Maybe mention which lists are to be used to -devel-announce or -announce.
Personally, I would be happy to abandon the trademark, or use trademark law with some legal judo akin to copyleft, but the advice may be that using this harsh tool in a draconian manner is the only way to avoid misrepresentation without using poorly-internationalised defamation laws.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
