On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 22:24 +1000, Joshua Wulf wrote:
I also think that's a very important point Karsten.
Perhaps one way that we might avoid looking like the bad guys is to take
the tack that someone who does not have permission to use the trademark
is not "in violation", they are simply "in omission". They've
to apply for permission because it slipped their mind or because we
didn't make it sufficiently clear how to do so.
If we make it easy for people who have omitted to apply to do so, by
gently reminding them, and explaining why such a process is necessary,
most people will comply. Those who don't will be the ones who are in
There's nothing like being accused of violating something to get people
on the defensive. Especially when they haven't done anything wrong and
their motives are innocent.
Greg - can you make a note of that? These are sins of omission until
commission is proven. :)
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Content Services Fedora Documentation Project