On 8/23/05, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > You're damn straight. I'm really concerned that the word "Fedora" can > and will become an enforcement issue for Red Hat. Why hasn't anyone > else thought of this? Don't you mean.. why hasn't anyone made a big public fuss about it in a mailinglist like you are doing. How about you WAIT for the details of the foundation to be made public. The foundation doesn't exist yet..so how about you stick to second guessing existing institutions and organizations and leave the crystal ball reading of the future to the professionals like me. Once the foundation does exist...and you have had a chance to read through all the related legal paperwork associated with constructing the non-profit entity and the transfer of assets..then please...if there are any specific unresolved legal issues you want to discuss with the boardmembers..do it then...don't do it now while no one other than the people working on the paperwork can comment. And frankly I'd MUCH rather have them concentrating on the paperwork than fending off imagined problems about how the trademarks are going to be transferred. As it stands... the decision about the project name has been made... the decision about "no hats" logo has been made. Sorry you didn't get to have the final say about those decisions..but they were made..and thats that. We can not continue to hashout the SAME dicussion every month. Actually I thought this logo topic was now a little past being worthwhile, the original purpose of coming up with ideas has been served and the designers have been tasked to actually do something that doesn't suck. At least that's what I read from the marketing meeting minutes and from other posts. As far as I can tell this past weeks discussion about logos has been a wee bit self-indulgent.. and frankly has gone on way too long to serve anything but frustration if the design team really has been tasked to deal with it now. The tagential legal issues that you are bringing at this late date are just dragging the purpose of this list backwards not forwards. If you are itching to do something constructive i suggest you read over the last marketing meeting minutes and look at the defined action items and see if you can help out specifically with one of them. You will of course probably disappointed that none of the action items was "second guess the yet-to-be-created foundation's ability to manage and its ip assets" -jef -jef > > The whole reason I thought the Fedora Foundation could even continue use > the word "Fedora" as a trademark was because Red Hat would maintain > control over it, or somehow authorize/license the Fedora Foundation. If > that is not the case, illustrations are not the problem! > > > This is not a mailing list for legal discussions. Kindly take it elsewhere > > Okay, which list? Seriously, this is a serious, serious issue. > > I'm not a lawyer, but I do a lot of consulting all over the US and sign > dozens of contracts a year. Some of them deal with the serious misuse > of trademarks, so I'm a bit dumbfounded. > > If I'm running the Fedora Foundation, it would be my #1 concern right > now. I'm being 0% argumentative. What is the guarantee that the Fedora > Foundation does not have its trademark become the victim of enforcement > issues? > > > -- > Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > The best things in life are NOT free - which is why life is easiest if > you save all the bills until you can share them with the perfect woman > > -- > Fedora-marketing-list mailing list > Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list > -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
