On Monday, December 13, 2010 06:47:15 am Jeremiah Foster
wrote:
> David Greaves wrote;
>
> <snip>
>
> >> We would ask you to move away from using
> >> {M,m}-e-e-{G,g}-o or any subset of those letters or
> >> sounds in that order, alone or in combination with
> >> other letters, words or marks that would tend to
> >> cause someone to make a reasonable connection of the
> >> reference with the MeeGo mark. We specifically
[snip]
> >
> > Can I ask how this applies to the 50+ packages which
> > are currently part of meego but which are opensource
> > and many of which we presumably expect to be used
> > elsewhere?
> >
> > eg:
> > libmeegochat
> > libmeegotouch
> > maemo-meegotouch-interfaces (!)
[snip]
>
> We cannot make that assumption. We'll need an explicit
> statement on trademark from the Linux Foundation
> regarding the MeeGo trademark if the Linux Foundation
> wants MeeGo "branded" software available in Debian. I'm
Many of these libs are distributed LGPL, without any special
exception for trademarks. I submit that this manner of
trademark enforcement is inconsistent with the LGPL.[1]
> Clearly the fairest naming scheme would to change the
> library names to something without the trademark.
If this is the LF's stance on the issue, then I agree that
it would be best to change the library names.
-gabriel
[1] LGPL v2 Sections 2, 10, and 11. Also the FSF FAQ
indirectly references the issue:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
MeeGo-dev@meego.com
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
