| 1 |
On Monday 27 September 2004 02:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Please read |
| 3 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/ml/gentoo-trustees/2004/09/msg_00022.xml and |
| 4 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/name_logo.html before the rest of this. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> What we're doing here is essentially licensing our trademark, based on |
| 7 |
> various conditions. Therefore, this page _is_ a trademark license and |
| 8 |
> needs all the things they need. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Trademark law in the U.S. basically dictates that if others are using |
| 11 |
> our trademark in our area, they need to be either licensed or |
| 12 |
> cease-and-desisted shortly after we become aware of them. If we just |
| 13 |
> ignore them, the trademark's considered abandoned and we lose its |
| 14 |
> ownership. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I would like to add here that in any case the logo's are copyrighted and |
| 17 |
so can not be forfeited (within 80 years). I believe they are also part |
| 18 |
of the trademarks, but also fall under copyright protection. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> It may also be helpful to examine our trademark registration at |
| 21 |
> http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=nnf8a6.3.1. The |
| 22 |
> description limits us to computer software optimized and customized for |
| 23 |
> particular applications, not computer software as a whole. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> As a result, we need to ensure that the quality of any licensees's |
| 26 |
> products using the Gentoo name meet the same standards Gentoo's |
| 27 |
> products do. Trademark licenses not including a quality-control |
| 28 |
> provision are called naked licenses, and they are invalid and may |
| 29 |
> result in the loss of our trademark rights. Not only is the QC |
| 30 |
> provision needed, it also must be enforced. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Nice to know. I'm in favour of it in any case. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> The page should include a termination clause (e.g., "The Gentoo |
| 36 |
> Foundation may revoke your license to use the Gentoo trademark at any |
| 37 |
> time for any reason."). It should specify that the license is |
| 38 |
> nonexclusive and nontransferable, and it should also say that after |
| 39 |
> termination, any products must be either sold off within a reasonable |
| 40 |
> time (say 60 days) or, if they fail to meet Gentoo quality standards, |
| 41 |
> destroyed. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
We should certainly add that. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> It should say the licensee must submit a sample to the Gentoo |
| 46 |
> Foundation to satisfy the QC provision, and default to approval if no |
| 47 |
> response is received within, say, 15 days. In addition, it may be |
| 48 |
> useful to require additional samples over time. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Thoughts? Discussion? Anyone still subscribed to this list? |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
15 days might be short, and I don't want to license by default in any |
| 53 |
case. Maybe the 15 days approval could hold only for the sample |
| 54 |
approvement, but only in the case of registered mail with delivery |
| 55 |
notification (after delivery). |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> Thanks, |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Paul |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 63 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 64 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 65 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives