On Jul 21, 2008, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sticking a mark in the middle of other things in a way that causes > confusion generally needs that and may well need the permission of > the rights holder. What if the trademarked term causes confusion by itself? What if it was created to cause this confusion? > The difference between talking about a Xerox machine (genuinely by Xerox) > and trying to sell your own product as GNU/Xerox is quite different. We're not talking about selling products here. In fact, we've already established that this is not about distributions, it's about the operating system name. Which is not a product. The kernel named Linux is hardly a product either. So, would you please explain how your intervention in this thread, bringing trademark confusion into an already-complicated issue, was even relevant? http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/7781d4221fceedb2 looks like estoppel to me, regardless of http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/01/19/0828245&mode=nested > (compiling products with Linux/gcc - after all if GNU needed Linux, GNU didn't have a complete kernel, indeed. GCC, a small part of the GNU project, runs on several operating systems, including GNU/Linux. It doesn't run just on Linux, though. > RMS said they needed a kernel then clearly gnu products What's with this obsession with "products"? What GNU products are you talking about? We're just talking about software. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
