On 2/27/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 13:48, Dave Neary wrote: > ... > > I think it'd be a good idea to get a proper legal opinion on defending our > > marks, and setting up our trademark policy to be as liberal as possible > > without > > losing them. > > I agree. I thought this had already happened, and the lawyers had > replied "we don't know", approximately. Perhaps I am remembering > incorrectly - who was it who has spoken to legal counsel about this so > far?
Tim handled all our prior correspondence with counsel on this issue. As far as I can tell, he did not push the counsel[1] to be in any way creative with the policy, so (again, as far as we could tell) the answer wasn't 'we don't know'- the question was never asked. I've been researching the problem on and off since the summer, and I have contacted the clinical program at my employer[2] about the problem. Their involvement isn't set in stone yet, but the folks at the program are deeply intrigued the challenge of forming a non-traditional but still legally solid trademark policy for us. I hope that they'll be able to work with us to pursue something along the lines of what Dom suggested elsewhere in the thread- clearly delineating what does and doesn't need permission in such a way that we can still protect the mark but give maximum permissiveness to members of our community who wish to be creative in spreading the word about GNOME. Luis [1] from Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich. I'm trying to schedule a meeting with them to review exactly what has and hasn't happened, but our contact there is traveling so it has been difficult. [2] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/clinical _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list