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 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.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part