Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christian Leutloff wrote:
> > Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > `liberal license'
> > > =
> > > I. Can be used by everyone
> > > II. May not be used to advertise non-free products
>
> > Why shouldn't a commercial compa
Brian Ristuccia writes:
> I think sort of thing would prompt at least a "this trademark is ours"
> angry-gram from the owner of the TouchTone mark.
It would do no such thing. Do you think that GM sends Ford an "angry-gram"
every time a Ford executive says "chevrolet"? A trademark is not a
copyr
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I see that as a comparison to open source, not a claim that
> their Community Source license is an open source license.
This to me sounds like someone going on and on about the features and
benefits of their alternate tone-based t
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> I think sort of thing would prompt at least a "this trademark is ours"
> angry-gram from the owner of the TouchTone mark. IANAL, but I don't see how
> the Open Source mark and it's use by folks at Sun Microsystems would be any
> different in this sort of instance.
But he
On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 09:29:38PM -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Brian Ristuccia writes:
>> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014005,00.html
>
>> If SPI still owns this mark, someone needs to send Sun Microsystems a
>> cease-an
Christian Leutloff wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > `liberal license'
> > =
> > I. Can be used by everyone
> > II. May not be used to advertise non-free products
> Why shouldn't a commercial company says "Yes it runs with Debian" or
> "It's a Debian based
David Carlisle writes:
> since you added a CC to a debian list,...
I didn't add debian-legal to the headers: that's where this discussion
started. I added you, since I thought you would be interested.
> ...I assume that you know of the following:
As a Debian developer and a charter subscriber
Ben Pfaff writes:
> However, I see that as a comparison to open source, not a claim that
> their Community Source license is an open source license.
Yes. He has as much right to mention Open Source as we do to mention Sun
Microsystems. He just can't use it as a label on something he is selling.
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> `liberal license'
> =
> I. Can be used by everyone
> II. May not be used to advertise non-free products
Why shouldn't a commercial company says "Yes it runs with Debian" or
"It's a Debian based product" and use the Debian logo for thi
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian Ristuccia writes:
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014005,00.html
> If SPI still owns this mark, someone needs to send Sun Microsystems a
> cease-and-desist before we lose it.
I see no evidence of infringement of the
Brian Ristuccia writes:
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014005,00.html
> If SPI still owns this mark, someone needs to send Sun Microsystems a
> cease-and-desist before we lose it.
I see no evidence of infringement of the Open Source mark at that URL.
--
John Hasler
Any idea what the current legal status of the open source certification mark
is? Jim Mitchell of Sun Microsystems seems to be using it in a way
incompatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, the Open Source
Definition, and Free Software.
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014
12 matches
Mail list logo
