Message 01556 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01543 Message: 5/50 L4 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] RedHat and Fedora and SuSE and Novell



On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Martin Hardie wrote:

Chris posted the link: http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/
They are a form of Exclusive rights/ip rights are they not?
How come we feel so comforatble (or some of us do) with these companies 
closing up their property in this way?

To me trade marks have always seemed like a commercial equivalent to a 
personal name. So just like it seems only right that software authors
can put their name on something they write, companies can put their
trade mark on something they sponsor/pay for/organise. If I join
someone's project, I don't expect to remove their name from code;
similarly with Fedora - if the name upsets anyone, why not join a 
non-commercial project like Debian instead? Asking to remove the name
seems childish.

Is that a naive reaction? I hadn't thought about the topic before, and it 
was just my immediate response.

Graham

Felix raised it another way I think on nettime the other day:
"[This is unlikely to be a legal case, though from a semiotic point of view, 
it's nevertheless puzzling. Is using images that are released under the GPL 
the same than using source code released the GPL? Is including existing 
images into new images, in this case, a screenshot of a kde desktop in a tv 
series, the same as including existing source code into a new source code? 
Felix]
Posted by Jonathan Riddell on Friday 31/Oct/2003, @17:09
from the 24h-to-3.2beta dept.
http://dot.kde.org/1067616574/";

So why is some property/info seen as "wanting to be free" whilst other types 
are regarded as fair game for being treated as exclusive property?

Thanks
Martin
 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://openflows.org/~auskadi/

"Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false, 
which 
would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which is a 
virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something that 
certainly exists or happened."Bishop Otto to Baudolino

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/


_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01543 Message: 5/50 L4 [In index]
Message 01556 [Homepage] [Navigation]