Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:32:53 +0000 From: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> To: John Daniels <jmd526@hotmail.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The merger, and ... Message-ID: <38CD88B5.DBF58B1E@originative.co.uk> References: <20000314000623.50393.qmail@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Daniels wrote: > .... > So far, the argument has been: how little can I include and still have the > right to call my distro "FreeBSD." Perhaps we can illuminate the issue > somewhat if we consider it from the opposite direction? At what point > should a firm have the *obligation* to attribute it's product to the FreeBSD > Foundation? It would seem that this would also have to be addressed since > the Trademark holder is obligated to protect it's Trademark. These requirements are a feature of the license and not of the trademark. The FreeBSD license is very free, it requires nothing and only prohibits claiming the work is your own. Some parts of the system may still have the older license that requires attribution in advertising but I doubt that that would be enforced given that the new license does not include that clause. The trademark issue is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with the use of the code. Trademark law exists to prevent companies producing copycat products with the same or similar names and "tricking" consumers into buying the copycat product in the mistaken belief that it is the "real thing". That is why brown fizzy drinks have to be called cola rather than coke, it doesn't actually stop them producing a similar product but they must create their own branding and not ride on the coat tails of the coke brand. The crux of the issue is whether the project considers that other distributions of FreeBSD would be ripoffs trying to ride on the coat tails of the FreeBSD name or wether they would be genuine members of the FreeBSD community. The concerns being raised, that seem to get lost in the noise, are that the FreeBSD foundation should allow the use of the FreeBSD name if it does not have a detrimental effect on the projec in order to allow other companies to become active members of the FreeBSD community. What would be unnacceptable, given that FreeBSD is an open-source volunteer based project, is if the foundation prevented reasonable use of the trademark in order to prevent competitors of WC/BSDI from appearing. There is a very straigthforward question that we can ask ourselves. Do we believe that WC/BSDI, should have a protected status as the commercial vendor of FreeBSD? or Do we believe that FreeBSD should be made available to all commercial vendors who are willing to abide by the projects rules and have a genuine interest in being active proponents of the project. If you believe in the latter then the issue then becomes one of defining conditions that provide a level playing field for all interested parties. Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38CD88B5.DBF58B1E>