Re: [MeeGo-dev] Packaging the MeeGo stack on Debian - Use the name ?
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 discussed one possibility for illustration purposes – which
is to use MG in the place of MeeGo. We do not think that a plain text
MG, when used in reference to the code, as in a file or project or team
name, would cause a reasonable person to be confused.
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 (!)
meego-handset-* (21)
meegotouch-* (14)
meegotouchcp-* (8)
pulseaudio-modules-meego
I assume the MeeGo project is implicitly giving permission to use these as
package and library names by publishing the packaging and tarballs under the
relevant license?
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 no expert on the trademarking of software libraries but I
understand it is difficult to exercise trademark claims against
software libraries. In this case it would seem highly problematic for
some of the libraries, like maemo-meegotouch-interfaces, since it
would appear to be two separate trademarks (maemo and meego) with two
separate trademark holders, Nokia and LF respectively.
There appears to be some intentional bias with regard to naming, as if
the Linux Foundation wanted to specify their provenance as opposed
making these libraries more generic and thereby potentially widening
their appeal. While I understand the need for trademark to some
degree, and while the use of trademark protection for Linux seems
useful, protecting the trademark of one distro at the cost of the
other distros seems to be counter to the Linux Foundation's charter.
Clearly the fairest naming scheme would to change the library names to
something without the trademark.
Jeremiah
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=s=qeo1vxstgdqjvc_oatgn=sa40yc35c3b...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [MeeGo-dev] Packaging the MeeGo stack on Debian - Use the name ?
Hi, Before we escalate put words in people's mouths, we should let Ibrahim come back with an answer. He said as recently as Friday that he was going to get a precision on this issue. That said, there is some factual misunderstanding going on here... Jeremiah Foster wrote: David Greaves wrote; 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? snip I assume the MeeGo project is implicitly giving permission to use these as package and library names by publishing the packaging and tarballs under the relevant license? 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. You can always call a rose a rose, regardless of whether someone has a trademark on it. If there is a project called libmeegotouch, and someone takes the source code of libmeegotouch and packages it for Debian, then it's entirely OK to call the resulting package libmeegotouch. This is the equivalent to buying a Mars bar and reselling it (as a Mars bar). If the thing you're packaging is not the same (say you're applying substantial patches), the libmeegotouch authors could ask you legitimately not to release your repackaged modified software as libmeegotouch, because this will result in confusion over origins (think: Iceweasel/Firefox). This is the equivalent to selling a chocolate, caramel nougat bar that you make yourself as a Mars bar. I'm no expert on the trademarking of software libraries but I understand it is difficult to exercise trademark claims against software libraries. I don't see why it would be... when you get down to it, that's mostly how Java works. Clearly the fairest naming scheme would to change the library names to something without the trademark. I don't know about fair/unfair, but it would certainly be a resolution path. -- maemo.org docsmaster Email: dne...@maemo.org Jabber: bo...@jabber.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d063305.6050...@maemo.org
Happy Holidays!
Happy Holidays! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/hbrdekjiaynxshndwcivs1ru6hjt2jqibbtbc9nl0...@comcast.net
