On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 03:25:41PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: > On 27 December 2012 15:23, Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:04:12AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote: > >> On 27 December 2012 08:57, Pravin Satpute <psatpute@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > 2. Added Trademark line in COPYRIGHT file > >> > >> I am very confused - this contradicts the idea of dropping of the RFN. > > > > That statement itself seems to contradict something you said on this > > list on 6 December 2012 regarding Overpass: > > > > If 'Overpass' is considered a valuable Red Hat trademark, I'd > > personally suggest declaring trademark notices alongside copyright > > notices for both licenses. > > > > (unless I misunderstood it). > > > > In any case, I don't see a contradiction. The RFN is used to add a > > trademark-like copyright condition to the OFL. The trademark notice is > > just a trademark notice. > > Right - but Pravin said, > > >> > we have decided to drop RFN from Lohit fonts. > > which suggest removing trademark notices also. Ah, I see - I think I did misunderstand your earlier comment. I now understand you to have been saying "if the name is so important, why not include *both* the RFN and a conventional trademark notice". I instead had thought you meant "why bother to use the RFN mechanism - if the name is so important you can just include a trademark notice". In any case, I don't see the harm in the project maintainer including the trademark notice. - RF _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/
