Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Once again forgot to hit Reply-All.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> I'm not interested to take sides, I only want to learn about the GPL.
You are confusing Copyright and Trademark Law. Copyright law says that yes
they can fork the project.
Trademark Law however says that Miss B. is allowed to follow up legally to
prevent a trademark, which can be registered or unregistered, from being
confused by another similar trademark that might be confused with it. The
fact that the trademark is similar, and the product is similar, is doubly
damning in that case.
So while a fork is certainly allowed by copyright, the original owner is
completely within their rights to make sure that the fork is not in any way
confusing with the original product.
This is correct, so long as Miss B is distributing the code. The legal
process can mean that either Miss B either must cease distribution of the
product, or come into compliance with the GPL copyright. However that also
means that it is the choice of Miss B. and not of Miss R. to force the
> But again, Miss B. accepted the GPL, but while the nail polish needs to
This is much greyer area to tell the truth, and one I won't touch. But if
you look at the SFLC's cases in the past about the GPL, you will notice a
theme of them giving ample time to come into compliance with the terms of
the GPL before taking the product to court. However those are all slightly
different due to none of those products to my knowledge, being GPLd software
that wasn't already availiable form another source. So I suspect there will
be no final answer on this until a judge(Or more likely multiple) are forced
to answer it in a courtroom.
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Once again forgot to hit Reply-All.On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:41=
PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.ma=
email@example.com>wrote:> I'm not interested to tak=
e sides, I only want to learn about the GPL.