On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 03:30:16PM -0800, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
That is true. As I think I noted on identica, I was influenced here by
> > This License does not {+grant any rights in My name, trademarks, service
> > marks, or logos.
>
> Not a substantial change, but I wonder why the substance is needed.
> The grant is explicitly one of copyright. Lots of popular FLOSS
> licenses don't mention trademark.
past discussions (not about this license, but FLOSS generally) with
Pam Chestek. If she sees this, maybe she'd be willing to provide a
better justification than I can (for why, say, the GPL might be better
off with this kind of clause as a built-in provision - GPLv3
explicitly authorizes such a clause as an 'additional requirement'),
though I note that I'm solely to blame for putting this provision
in. It was actually one of the first things I added when working from
the GPLv3 text, as I recall.