There are no affirmative statements granting trademark rights. Savvy
trademark holders don't name the program that they distribute with their
valuable trademark. So they avoid any question of estoppel or the
exhaustion doctrine.
And there is certainly no affirmative statement granting a right to
m
Quoting Michael Downey (mich...@downey.net):
[about whether a CDCK contract is entailed for public use of a
CDCK-hosted Discourse instance:]
> No, they are not. Only subject to whatever terms of service the
> application operator, e.g., OSI, wants to place.
>
> Just like no one is entering int
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:55 AM Patrick Schleizer
wrote:
Since GPLv3 says that "Prohibiting misrepresentation" is an opt-in, it
> could be argued in court that misrepresentation as per "pure" (no
> supplemental terms) GPLv3 licensed material is permissible?
>
You can argue anything you want, bu
Hi there,
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019, at 12:59, Rick Moen wrote:
> I appreciate your speaking, Kevin. I continue to be curious about
> whether users would be expected to enter a contractual relationship with
> Civilized Discourse Construction Kit, Inc. (CDCK), in order to participate.
No, they are not
Quote GPLv3:
> [...]
> 7. Additional Terms.
> [...]
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders
of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
> [...]
> c) Prohibiting misrepresen
Hi Henrik,
Thanks again for your comments. They have been helpful in making sure that
the scope of the CAL is clearly communicated.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:27 AM Henrik Ingo
wrote:
> It's IMO regrettable that the goal of the CAL isn't to protect the entire
> scope of GDPR personal data (in
