| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > |
| 5 |
>> > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under |
| 8 |
>> trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the |
| 9 |
>> "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not just the "GENERAL PUBLIC |
| 10 |
>> LICENSE." The former has far more trademark protection than the |
| 11 |
>> latter. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Do you see that term trademarked anywhere? I will go file for one if |
| 14 |
> you really insist on it, but really, think this through please. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The term "GNU" is trademarked as far as I'm aware. Or, if not it |
| 17 |
would probably be trademarkable in this context, since it is fairly |
| 18 |
unique. The term "General Public License" seems rather, well, |
| 19 |
general. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
When your title for something is generic it is generally very |
| 22 |
difficult to enforce a trademark against it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If you called it the "Linux DCO" then you'd probably have a strong |
| 25 |
recourse against anybody also using the term "Linux DCO" since Linux |
| 26 |
is a strong mark (it is a word that Linus invented as far as I'm |
| 27 |
aware). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Look at Microsoft's attempts to enforce trademarks against "windows" |
| 30 |
for an example of why generic words don't make good marks. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
>> > which |
| 34 |
>> > is why that wording is there (same wording is in the GPL), so don't |
| 35 |
>> > think that by pointing at the one in the kernel source tree that changes |
| 36 |
>> > anything... |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> The Linux Foundation published a version of their DCO under the GPL, |
| 39 |
>> which we would of course abide by. The fact that they published it |
| 40 |
>> elsewhere with a different license doesn't mean that we can't re-use |
| 41 |
>> the version published under the GPL. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> How well does "plain text" work under the GPL? Go on, I've been down |
| 44 |
> that path before, it's well-worn, we'll be here when you get back... :) |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Well, whether the GPL is a good license for text is a separate matter, |
| 47 |
but it is a license. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
>> If we aren't changing anything that does raise the question of why not |
| 51 |
>> just use the Linux DCO, v1.1 or whatever it is at, incorporated by |
| 52 |
>> reference. I do think we have the legal right to fork it since it was |
| 53 |
>> effectively published by the Linux Foundation under the GPL, but that |
| 54 |
>> doesn't require us to fork it. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> Please just use the one as-published. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Seems like a logical approach. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Rich |
Archives