GPLv3 Appropriate Legal Notices and Restrictive Trademark Grants
forums at david-woolley.me.uk
Mon Jul 21 21:18:56 UTC 2008
Russ Nelson wrote:
> Misguided. It's reasonable (and both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 require it)
> to expect people to be told that they are running a modified version
> of your software. Not granting a trademark license, or granting it
> only under certain conditions, is just another way of making sure that
> people comply with the GPL.
That wasn't the situation here. As I understand it they actually
claimed that they made it a requirement that you used their trademark,
and then made it a condition of using the trademark that you couldn't
use the software "commercially". They claimed that the trade mark
notice was part of the reasonable notices, and therefore the GPL didn't
allow it to be removed.
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
More information about the License-discuss