On 11/11/21 9:35 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 2:59 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 1:51 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But that implies that a word can't contain another word, I think?
Now we're having fun!
"UWash" for example I would argue contains a number of words ("ash",
"wash", "as", "a", for starters). Unless "word" has a special
domain-specific meaning in the world of font foundry names (does it?)
it is not clear to me that this developer would agree that "UWash"
does not violate the restriction.
The most reasonable interpretation in my view is that the context
matters. So a word that is a variation of the form would be the same
"word" for the purposes of the licence. For example, "ash" and
"ashen". But if it's a string that happens to appear in another,
unrelated word, they are separate words. For example, "ash" and
"wash". In my original example, the fact that "UWash" is a name the
University of Washington uses supports the "it's not the same word"
argument. If I were to name a font "uwash-ttyp0", the "they're
separate words" case is weaker, but not a slam dunk.
I don't think you're arguing against the general concept (e.g. ASL 2.0
section 6), so the question is really "what's the minimum length?" If
General Electric released software under ASL 2.0 (replacing "Apache"
with "General Electric"), section 6 would preclude using "GE" in the
name of a derivative as that is a trademark of General Electric. So I
think we have to be okay with two-letter names if we're okay with ASL,
don't we? Similarly, calling a derivative work "stoneage", while it
contains the consecutive letters "g" and "e", seems obviously
acceptable under ASL 2.0 section 6.
I understand the philosophical issue with restricting renaming
generally. But I think if we go down that road, that represents a
significant policy shift from our past practice.
OK, well I withdraw my objections to treating this as an acceptable
Fedora license for fonts. I reserve the right to complain about a
similar future non-font-oriented license. :-)
Since you both are having so much fun... here's my two cents ;)
I agree this is ok for Fedora, but I also understand Richard's initial
hesitation re: the naming issue.
I think the distinction is that
- the clause in Apache 2.0 is explicitly consistent with trademark law.
- whereas, this license sort of goes a step further and gives
instructions on how to change the name enough to avoid a "likelihood of
confusion" for the consumer (the standard for trademark infringement)
Stating you must rename a modified version (or derivative work) is
pretty common, but generally still considered free/open as it is merely
reflecting the reality of trademark law (at least that's they way I
think of it).
Explaining how to rename it - goes a step further, which could be seen
as too far, but in this case, it seems pretty reasonable.
I think the line gets crossed (and may be where Richard is reserving his
right to complain) when a license actually requires the use of a
specific name in a specific scenario, so-called "badgeware" licenses.
Pam Chestek did a great talk on this at FOSDEM 2014, if anyone is
interested :)
https://archive.fosdem.org/2014/schedule/event/trademark_licenses/
Cheers,
Jilayne
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
