7 Aug
2009
7 Aug
'09
11:41 p.m.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>wrote;wrote:
And this is why I said multiple judges;) Because the ruling of the first
one would likely be appealed anyways;)
Seablade
You are confusing Copyright and Trademark Law. Copyright law says that
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.
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 ;).
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.