Forgot to send to the list. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Thomas Vecchione <seabla...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Raymond Martin <lase...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Not at all. There is even evidence in the FSF documentation somewhere >> exactly >> about this point and they vehemently disagree with any attitude like that. >> We >> all know very well the situation of Emacs, Xemacs, and various other >> forks. >> > > The FSF is not the law. I suggest you look up Trademark Law to realize why > you are wrong, and why you are subject to a lawsuit for knowingly creating a > product that is infringing on an already existing trademark(Regeristered or > Unregeristered would make a small, but only small, difference in this case), > and can easily be confused as such. In fact the case against forcing you to > change it is rather strong because not only is your product nearly identical > in name, it is nearly identical in function and can be easily confused with > the original. > > Standard disclaimer of I am not a lawyer of course applies. > > Seablade >
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
