On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:07:50AM -0500, Pamela Chestek wrote:I believe something like that had occurred to me. *Maybe* it would be
>
> > * "or "powered by" statements"
> >
> > Is this too specific, or are we hoping a judge would understand this as
> > referring to a class of statements? E.g. if there was a "FooBar Inside"
> > statement instead of "Powered by FooBar"...
>
> This is just a clarification of what kinds of things absolutely are
> not 'Legal Notices'. It isn't meant to be exhaustive, but I did
> recently add 'Powered by statements' because that is such a common
> form in which I've seen the problematic condition.
>
>
> When Gerv raised this, I wondered why the word "trademarks" isn't in there.
> When I suggested adding "trademark legends" I'm SURE I had a good reason not to
> add "trademarks," but for the life of me I can't figure it out now. Maybe I was
> thinking about the case where a name is also a trademark, so in the copyright
> notice the company name would also be trademark? But that seems a silly thing
> to worry might get misinterpreted.
silly, but based on past experience I can anticipate *some* critical
readers saying that there's a contradiction (or, worse, a trap)
because you have to preserve copyright notices.