To all RED5 users and Dev.
No need to change name, there are no laws in control one's name for 
business unless it showed damages to the plaintiff, if a law suit 
proceed, it is the plaintiffs must prove to court damage has been done 
by defendants, in this case, by who?? OpenSource users ?
Not a smart lawyer case...
MC

D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
> Rodrigo Ordonez Licona wrote:
>   
>> Momentum is strong enough that we would follow developers to a red6 or 
>> red7 (or whatever new name it needs) project in no time.
>>     
>
> RED6!?  Wow, is that an upgrade!  I want!
>
> LOL
>
> -- Dante
>
>   
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On 
>> Behalf Of *Dominick Accattato
>> *Sent:* Martes, 21 de Agosto de 2007 04:35 p.m.
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Subject:* Re: [Red5] H.264 codec on Flash player... but not for Red5?
>>
>> Hank, as always I appreciate your comments on these matters.
>>
>> Additionally, I just checked an existing site I created and Sorenson is 
>> still streaming fine, and I'd imagine that On2 will as well.  I had no 
>> doubts that they would as Adobe strives for backward compatibility even 
>> though they have made security enhancements that broke existing content 
>> in the past.
>>
>> I'm not sure why he wrote that it doesn't support sorenson
>>
>> On 8/21/07, *hank williams* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>
>>     1. I am not clear what name you are saying red5 comes close to
>>     infringing.
>>      
>>     2. If it does, there are no damages without notice. You cannot sue
>>     if you ask someone to change the name and they do. Its not like
>>     copyright infringement where any infringement creates a statutory
>>     liability. Therefore any intelligent open source project would just
>>     change its name. This would not be a smart strategy for eliminating
>>     open source and I *strongly* doubt red5 is at any risk from this
>>     kind of a plan.
>>      
>>     Regards,
>>     Hank
>>
>>      
>>     On 8/21/07, *Donnacha* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>
>>         RE: Trademarks
>>
>>         To clarify what I meant, this issue has come up in discussion with
>>         some very switched on people but not, I have to stress, anyone in
>>         Adobe itself.  The context was people in fairly high positions,
>>         discussing the tricky problem, faced by many proprietary software
>>         makers, of how to counter OSS competition without provoking a
>>         publicity backlash; Adobe/Red5 came up as a perfect case study.
>>
>>         There was total agreement that the Red5 developers have been
>>         meticulous in ensuring that they didn't infringe Adobe's IP but the
>>         name itself was identified as their Achilles heal, not necessarily
>>         because it infringes a trademark or servicemark, although it
>>         may, but
>>         because it comes close enough to justify a court case.
>>
>>         The case of a claimant against Red5 would not be strong enough to
>>         guarantee a win and, therefore, would not be worth taking UNLESS a
>>         third party anonymously funded the legal costs as a distraction/FUD
>>         tactic, just as Microsoft part-funded SCO's anti-Linux
>>         actions.  This
>>         form of anonymous funding is 100% legal and very common practice
>>         among
>>         American corporations.
>>
>>         In the case of targeting OSS projects, the presumption is that no
>>         formal structure is in place to fund a defense and that the
>>         costs will
>>         be borne by the lead developers with no prospect, in this type of
>>         action, of re-couping their costs even if they win - each side eats
>>         their own costs.
>>
>>         This expensive process massively favors corporations and the vast
>>         majority of these disputes never make it to court, never come to
>>         public attention.
>>
>>         As any such action would be a once-off opportunity and would be held
>>         in reserve until it can be used to maximum effect, probably
>>         after the
>>         project goes 1.0 and a lot of momentum has built up behind the
>>         disputed name - being forced to change it at that point would be a
>>         serious set-back.
>>
>>         When the project was initially launched, I presumed that Red5 was
>>         temporary title, a cute Star Wars reference that would soon be
>>         replaced with a better name, one for which the .com was still
>>         available.  I never expected it would last this long, I figured
>>         that a
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Red5 mailing list
>>         [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>         http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Red5 mailing list
>>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dominick Accattato, CTO
>> Infrared5 Inc.
>> www.newviewnetworks.com <http://www.newviewnetworks.com>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Red5 mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Red5 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Red5 mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org

Reply via email to