Re: Trademark rights and copyright for "Cygwin" and logo.

[ls-cygwin-2006 at m-e-leypold dot de]

"Dave Korn" writes:

> On 11 May 2007 18:25, ls-cygwin-2006 wrote:
>
> [snip]
>

> You need to get it in writing, from Redhat's legal dept.  

Fine. Even links to the Cygwin FAQ (if it had such a section touching
on the topic)? I'm a tad surprised.

> Nothing else is worth your time and effort.

What "is worth my time and effort" is my concern only and I beg that
you kindly leave that to my judgment alone.

> To the best of my knowledge there has never been any discussion
> before of anything remotely like this issue on the mailing list.

I'm a bit surprised: I found some reference to people who wanted to
distribute Cygwin with books (for students) and others who expressed
the desire to have it on CD. If I build a CD from an open source
product the a obvious question is the logo+trademark issue -- as
anybody must have found out who ever tried to give away open source
CDs (even as gifts).

Strange that the question never turned up.

If there never was a discussion, I think there should be actually:
Freedom also involves the freedom to redistribute and if the
circumstances under which you're allowed to do so, are not clear and
or confused, that is basically equivalent to making it difficult ot
exercise this freedom.

Note that I would also (have to) accept any statement of the kind:
"Just strip the logo from the distribution and never mention the word
Cygwin anywhere" as a valid solution. But one has to know -- and not
to live in a legal limbo: That is not what the freedom of open source
is about.

> I think the only thing you could possibly receive by asking the list
> is uninformed speculation from people who are neither lawyers nor
> speak for red hat.

(Well, my opinion of people at the list isn't so low as yours, but ...)

As I already said -- this are not alternatives: Opinion != Spekulation
!= Information on historic and recent practice != legally binding
statements permissions, whatever. I really wonder where people get the
impression that you can't get information about sources of legal
information from anybody else but a lawyer. You can, and wether you
get your information from a lawyer or not, you're still under the
obligation to verify the information. 

Lawyerdom didn't even come into my question: The only people that can
give binding PERMISSION to use, are redhat (lawyers or not). But
information where to possibly find public statements (by Redhat) on
that topic, can be give by anyone and it wouldn't legally invalidate a
document if I got refered to it by a raving lunatic.

So sorry for disturbing the peace of the list. I think I'll skip
cygwin-licensing then, since if Corrinna ain't speaking for redhat
here she probably couldn't speak for Redhat there and everything
happening at cygwin-licensing is worth zilch, legally
speaking.

> That would almost certainly be /less/ worthwhile to you than hearing
> nothing at all.

Well, that helped a bit, a step in the right direction. That -- as far
as the cygwin project members know -- there is no known document on
the logo+trademark policy and that one has to negotiate with Redhat on
an individual basis.

(And BTW: Yes it's worth my time, let that be my concern only. It's
not that answers from corporations at issues like this are usually
coming forward at blinding speed.)

And again: Sad, that my wish to give fair attribution gives _me_ so
much trouble now.

Regards -- Markus

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/