On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 13:26, Dominic Lachowicz wrote: > On 2/27/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We can't have it both ways. Either we keep the GNOME trademarks, which > > requires us to enforce them, or we abandon them. > > That's probably not entirely true. > > The Foundation can probably come up with a set of TM guidelines where > - in certain circumstances and if certain criteria are met - a TM > grant automatically and implicitly is issued. In such a scenario, the > TMs would stil be legally enforcable in cases where those criteria > aren't met.
Perhaps - this has been discussed on the Board for years. As I understand it, the guidance from legal consultations so far has not helped sketch out such a guideline, and I was under the impression that there is little, if any, legal precedent for such implicit licensing. I agree that it is an attractive idea and would be my personal preference for a 'middle path'. Until we have one, however, we have to enforce the trademarks via explicit written permission instead, or else risk the claim of abandonment. Bill > > What those criteria would be, I don't know exactly. But it's something > that's probably worth pondering over for a bit. > > Best, > Dom > -- > Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list