On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Raymond Martin &lt;laseray(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Sorry you are incorrect. Then again you have shown a strong desire not to admit when this is the case in past discussions, so I don't expect you to change your mind. Trademarks apply to any product, be it software or physical, or company. A trademark is simply an identifying mark that differentiates something from the competition. This applies to Open Source software just the same as it does any other. Possibly, I don't know the situation or history with those products. It is completely seperate from this situation however. No, it will be whoever decides to defend their trademark first. There is a reason. A scumbag company forced trademark issues to the front That is your opinion. I would disagree, very strongly in fact. Once again, see what i already wrote. If a company does not defend its trademark, then the rights to that trademark are lost. Trademarks HAVE to be defended to remain valid. Thus forcing the CC isn't really an option as much as I enjoy the concept of the CC licensing. Trademarks can only be in violation when they are on similar things. Once again, WRONG. Trademark violations are when the use of a similar name, logo, image, etc. causes confusion with the original product. The products don't necessarily HAVE to be similar, just cause confusion with the trademark. Something funny about confusing names. For my needs jconv can be a very Which is why this does not apply as a trademark issue, it does not cause confusion with either products. So this would not be okay in Germany only, if there was a trademark Wrong, see above. Then Bob is guilty first and my project name is just due to his applications Yes someone else did something wrong, I am just copying them so I must be in the right. That is EXACTLY it. /sarcasm Seriously, you need to understand what you are writing about much better before you spout off drivel as fact. I am not a lawyer, but I obviously understand trademark law much better than you do. Not only that as a moral or ethical issue which you seem to think you are taking the high ground on, this is just wrong. Since there is so much confusion surrounding how copyrights work The irony is amazing. This is FOSS, not commercial enterprise, things do not need to operate exactly the same as in proprietary situations. That goes as much for trademarks as it does for copyrights. Idealogoically you are correct. However the same LAWS apply to both. They made all kinds of crazy claims I am going to stop repeating myself correcting you on trademarks. Claimed infringements on trademarks have to show that the existence Or confusion in the marketplace with that product. I suggest you read up... http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm Specifically this part... " 7. What constitutes trademark infringement?<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.h… If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. �� 1114, 1125<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1114.html>ml>. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961)<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tmcases/pola… . " Note that damage to sales is not mentioned as a factor. At this point I am done with this topic, Harvard has said anything I could on the topic in a pretty clear article linked to above, and I certainly take their word on this well above Raymond's. Seablade