On 12/17/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/17/05, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Luis: > > > > IMO there may be yet another option, i.e. the 'Debian' route, where we > > have one logo package (the default?) that's not trademarked (though IMO > > the 'GNOME' name should remain trademarked), and one, downloadable from > > gnome.org, which is trademarked and therefore (perhaps ironically) not > > part of the "community" packages. > > > > Whether this is desirable probably depends on who you ask, but at least > > it would have the opt in/opt out approach; users and distros could vote > > with their, uh, well you know what I mean... > > I believe I suggested this in my paper, though I forgot about it this > morning. I believe Debian is not substantially pleased with this > approach ATM, though I forget why- any debianites care to > elaborate/correct me?
Urgh, I knew I shouldn't have written these posts this weekend; my brain is still too fuzzy to think straight. There are a couple other options: * collective mark: basically, the mark indicates that you're a member of a given group, instead of that the product comes from a given manufacturer. * certification mark: basically, the mark indicates that the good meets certain specified standards (like using federico's proposed gnome standards from last year) instead of it coming from a specified manufacturer Either of these could be used in parallel with another strategy. Luis (probably more later tonight) > > Luis Villa wrote: > > > > > > > >Trademark law doesn't give us the flexibility we want, which leaves us > > >with options (as I see it) that are basically: > > > > > >* pursue the Mozilla route (strong trademark), which I feel will > > >alienate our contributors and completely violate the implied social > > >contract which the GPL has created around our shared community goods > > >(i.e., compare/contrast how we license our code and the foot- which > > >should be more important? why would we choose to license one more > > >liberally than the other?) > > > > > >* collaborate with our lawyers to create and pursue a completely > > >novel/untested/potentially completely undefensible license that uses a > > >novel legal approach to give the community flexible rights without (I > > >have approached one other free software group about collaborating > > >along these lines but it hasn't really gone anywhere, unfortunately) > > > > > >* give up the legally enforceable mark and use a political party > > >approach- accept that there will be some uses we don't like and can't > > >control, but use the mechanisms of party (speech, platform creation, > > >etc.) to control the mark as much as possible outside of traditional > > >trademark law. > > > > > >HTH- > > >Luis > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
