Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>As I pointed out, a company I worked for was required to
>>remove a trademark acquired after the fact by another
>>company. From source.
>
>
> You're flipping the problem. The GPL doesn't prevent
> bundling, the trademark holder prevented redistribution!
> That has 0% to do with GPL limitations.
I was responding to the original question, which IIRC
was whether GPL requirements possibly conflict with
the trademark limitations. If something is GPLed,
then it must allow the user to make mods and redistribute.
OTOH, the user has no authority to redistribute with
the trademark in place.
So, ISTM, that if one ried
to redistribute, he'd have to go edit out all
the trademarks wherever they occur in the source.
>
>
>>Do you consider privately owned source code sitting on
>>privately owned discs, and not distributed to be "a market
>>context"?
>
>
> Did you license the source code under an agreement?
No. I tried as specifically as possible to point out
that this was privately held, non-published, trade
secret, not distributed code. The source was never
intentionally divulged to anyone, except for contractors
who signed NDAs.
> If so, check the terms of that agreement.
> That's a further issue that has 0% to do with GPL
> limitations.
I don't know what you are trying to say.
My point is that if a trademark registration can force editing of
non-distributed code to remove it, then ISTM that it
certainly can require removal from distributed code, if the
distributer is not the holder of the trademark.
>
> I think you're doing a 180 on the legal flow here.
I think that somehow I didn't convey to you what my concern was.
>
> The GPL does not require you to remove anything, only
> something that requires it to function. You can distribute
> GPL software with trademarks, images, etc... do not require
> them to function.
>
Trademarks require removal, not GPL.
> There is no redistribution issues if the trademarks are
> removed, because there was no redistribution issue when the
> vendor added them.
My point exactly. If you take the source to the Linux kernel,
and attempt to redistribute it, but don't remove the
trademarked signs from it, then that is a violation.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
