[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Trademarks



I would expect that our legal folks will expect that other trademarks be 
honored, just as we would expect our own trademarks to be honored.

My $0.02: do your best to "do the right thing."  Worst case scenario, 
someone yells at us and says, "hey, that's trademarked!" and we fix it.

--g

_____________________  ____________________________________________
  Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have
 Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent.  the
             Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the 
                     ] [ dumb.  --mcluhan

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 14:22 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > Should one acknowledge trademarks somehow in all package summaries and
> > descriptions in Extras?  I think yes, but I don't see this mentioned in
> > the Wiki anywhere, and there are many packages that would need to be
> > updated wrt. this.
> > 
> > For example, I'm committing an update to the kernel-module-thinkpad in a
> > jiffy, with the following summary and description.  Would this be
> > ok/needed in all packages that refer to US/other trademarks, or is it
> > possible to have a "blanket trademark acknowledgement" somewhere?  Or
> > something else?
> 
> I suspect that what you've done is correct, but it should be run past RH
> legal. Greg, what does legal want us to do with regards to other
> people's trademarks?
> 
> ~spot
> -- 
> Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
> Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
> Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
> Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
> 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]