The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "Social Contract" [anti-trust]

On 28 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:

> dwarf@polaris.net (Dale Scheetz)  wrote on 27.06.97 in <Pine.LNX.3.95.970627121254.21670B-100000@dwarf.polaris.net>:
> 
> > While I agree that we need to protect the name, I'm just not sure that a
> > trademark is the way to do it.
> 
> I'm not sure there actually is any other way. A trademark is what you use  
> to protect names, just like a copyright is what you use to protect  
> contents.
> 
> And I've never heard anyone (except you, that is) claim that you need to  
> disallow anything that the law does not already allow. We just need to  
> make clear what we allow.

That was not my position either. What I said was that a trademark has
defined restrictions, just as a copyright does. In practice I have never
seen a trademark statement more complex than "xyzzy is a trademark of
zork" and was not aware that a more versatile form was possible. 

As a purely technical question, "Where would this trademark declaration
appear? Would it be required to appear in all places that it was used?"

In other words, it is my understanding that, if I want to use a
trademarked name in a document, I only need to declare (usually on the
copyright page) that this is a trademark that belongs to the trademark
holder. I have assumed that this is how the author of "Windows 95 for
Dummies" avoids injuction for trademark infringement, for instance.

> 
> Just because the law allows you to keep everybody out of your house  
> (unless a judge says otherwise), does not mean that you have to actually  
> keep everybody out just to keep your house.

No but if you mark your land as posted, but allow some folks to violate
the boundaries while you have other folks arrested, the courts are likely
to declare your restictions invalid.

> 
> The usual cause for losing trademark protection is not going after people  
> who use it in a way you have not allowed, even after learning about it.  

What was exactly what I meant with my comments about "selective
inforcement". Bruce's statements seemed to indicate that we would
selectivly use the trademark to stop behavior that we find objectionable.
That is we will use it against folks whose activities we don't approve of
while allowing others to use the trademark in a similar circumstance, but
while doing something that we do approve of.

> Solution: explicitely allow everything you don't want to go after people  
> for.

I we can, in fact, make it explicit, what use we accept, and what we
reject, then the trademark is, indeed, the way to do this. 

Sounds like we need to create a GPT (GNU Public Trademark) statement.

Thanks for your feedback,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .