linuxaudio.org

Thomas Vecchione wrote:

quoted text
>

>

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Ralf Mardorf

> > wrote:

>

>

>         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.

>

>

>

>     Okay, I guess you're right, because I have two web browsers, one

>     is called Firefox and the other is called Iceweasel, for me, as a

>     user they only differ by the name and logo and there seems to be a

>     reason for this ;).

>

>

> In fact that is exactly the reason IIRC.  The license on the Mozilla

> trademarks(Logos and Name) were deemed incompatible with Debian's

> policies so they couldn't be included.  Trademark law is even more fun

> because if you don't protect your trademark, you can lose all rights

> to it at the same time, so you pretty much HAVE to protect your trademark.

>

> I should clarify I am speaking from the US legal point of view.

>

>

>

>     Icevamp or Hotvamp instead of Improvisor might be an alternative.

>

>

> Yes they absolutely could.  Pretty much anything that clearly

> differentiates it as a product so that it cannot be confused with

> Impro-Visor would be an alternative.

>

>

>         This is much greyer area to tell the truth, and one I won't touch.

>

>

>     I agree, that's why laws are construable, have some margin. It's

>     impossible to factor in every devisable situation.

>

>     Everybody seems to understand the GPL and the law after that long

>     discussion for this basic issues. Here is a basic issue, with an

>     unusual exception. I guess even two judges could pronounce two

>     different sentences, in the same town, at the same court.

>

>

> And this is why I said multiple judges;)  Because the ruling of the

> first one would likely be appealed anyways;)

>

>        Seablade

Hi Seablade :)
normally "unusual exception" is a linguistic tautology, because normally

"exceptions" are "unusual", but I guess for juridically stuff there are

exceptions that occur frequently. This one really seems to be an

exceptionally exception.
E.g. Miss B. promised to accept the GPL, that might give Miss R. the

right to decompile the application, but Miss R. suspected Miss B. to be

a liar and if Miss B. would be a liar and not accept the GPL, Miss R.

might not have the right to decompile it, OTOH the list believes Miss

B., therefore whatever Miss R. is thinking, she might have the right to

decompile it, OTOH accepting the GPL without coming along with the GPL

... this could become a never ending story.
I wonder that at this point nobody is very badly annoyed about this

dispute, because it has become a useless back and forth.
I guess I'll shut up now, as long as there will be not another issue

about the GPL.
Best,

Ralf

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev