I appreciate and sign on to Rod Dixon's answer. Well phrased! Thanks.
/Larry Rosen
Rod wrote:
Matt,
I think the point was to say that some posts were not making a distinction
between saying "that license is not legally enforceable in any
court in the
U.S." and "some of the terms of that
John, you asked:
For example, it was
because of mistakes made early in the game that the open source
community lost all opportunity to obtain a trademark on "open
source."
Hmm, interesting. I thought it was because of the descriptive
nature of the proposed mark, which would make
6:25 PM
To: Rodent of Unusual Size
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: trademarked logos and GPL
Dear Rodent,
I'm sorry that my comments rubbed you the wrong way. My concern was that
the particular question I was commenting on dealt not specifically with
license
Ravicher, Daniel B. wrote:
Non-lawyers want clear cut answers and believe they exist. Lawyers know
clear cut answers don't exist; there are always arguments on both sides.
The first thing you learn in a lawin' family is that
there ain't any definite answers to anything.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
I want to discourage license-discuss participants from answering
questions like this one.
:
But non-lawyers have to avoid giving legal advice
Sorry, but this really rubs me the wrong way. In a word, BS.
I agree. If
Executive Director, OSI
650-216-1597
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.opensource.org
www.rosenlaw.com
-Original Message-
From: Bart Decrem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: trademarked logos and GP
on Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:23:00PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bart Decrem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: trademarked logos and GPL
7 matches
Mail list logo
