On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 10:56 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2004 15:33:08 +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra
<rms(a)1407.org> wrote:
> I think at least this add restrictions... which is a violation of all
> the GPL and LGPL software included in FC2.
statements like this...pretty much demand informed legal counsel to hold
any real value. My reading of the gpl, tells me trademark law is
outside the scope of gpl completely. And perhaps if you don't like my
opinion. Perhaps you will follow-up with your own legal counsel on the
mysql lawsuit that made it to court and see if they agree with the
statements made here:
http://www.open-mag.com/features/Vol_24/GPL/gpl.htm
Look, the phrase I ponted out adds restrictions on distribution.
YES or NO ?
The GNU GPL and LGPL do not allow one to add permissions.
YES or NO ?
The collection includes MUCH GPL'ed and LGPL'ed software.
YES or NO ?
I mentioned trademark is independent of copyright.
YES or NO ?
I provided one possible rewording that *probably* *could* help clear
doubts.
YES or NO ?
In my view, YES, YES, YES, YES and YES.
So I think that some thought leading to positive conclusions should be
applied before knee-jerk reactions.
YES or NO ?
Rui
ps: in my view, YES.