GPLv3 Appropriate Legal Notices and Restrictive Trademark Grants
rick at linuxmafia.com
Sat Jul 12 05:03:59 UTC 2008
Quoting Ben Tilly (btilly at gmail.com):
> However that said, it would be well within the rights of a company to
> release their software with a requirement to maintain their trademark
> and a restriction that you could not use it for certain commercial
> purposes. Which would be more troublesome.
Mentioning a trademark as required by licence does not constitute
using it in commerce (let alone in a fashion that makes it likely that
competing goods or services are likely to cause confusion in the minds
of the trademark-owning firm's customers).
We went through this regarding the first-generation badgeward licences,
didn't we? It's often (as per the wording of such agreements)
misleading and annoying, but not a bar to lawful commercial use of
[A past incident:]
> Glancing at those that truly seems to be an annoying situation to have
> been in.
As it turned out: 1. The other guy brandished a sabre. 2. We said, to
paraphrase, "Lo! Note yonder imaginary sabre." 3. The other guy
quietly went away. Naturally, it is not always thus. Browsing the
Berkman Center's trademark topic database at
http://www.chillingeffects.org/trademark/ is useful.
More information about the License-discuss