Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: > > I don't think trademark licensing should be included in the copyright > > licence, but then I don't think patent licensing should either and > > that's in GPLv3. > > Patent licensing (and opposition to DRM law) should be in the GPLv3 as > the GPLv3 is a Free Software licence, not a copyright licence. Free > Software is its content, copyright licencing is only part of its form.
No, the GPL has not yet become a full Intellectual Property Licence. There's a lot of language in there which seems to suggest that it is still primarily a copyright licence, such as "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program," (BTW: I think the above means GPLv3 will behave oddly in places where patents last longer than copyrights. I don't think there are any such places today, but does anything say it will always be that way?) [...] > Debian[*] can remove the trademarks from Firefox to produce Iceweasel, > which has the same functionality but different appearance. They cannot > remove the patented algorithms or DRM from Windows Media Player (or > whatever) and produce Iceplayer with different appearance or the same > appearance. The Debian project could, but it might not do the same tasks as a result. I agree that it's a more severe problem than most trademarks, though. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
