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

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

(Sorry if that arrives twice: My mail client is acting up and giving
 wrong sender addresses: I therefore send it again, since I don't see
 the first post arriving probably because of that. 

 My general apology to all: That will be my last post to the list in
 that sorry affair and if Dave or Christopher want to slug it out, I
 suggest they copy to me personally, I, for my part will only reply by
 personal mail, if at all.

 Regarding input on licensing issues, I'm still open (but be free to
 use personal mail if you like). I don't accuse anybody withholding
 anything, but there might be previous experience I'd be interested to
 hear about. I know about some projects that are using Cygwin (but
 call the project differently like XliveCD, refer to Cygwin in their
 attribution, but don't use the logo. If anybody from such a project
 is listening here and hasn't been put off yet :-(, I'd be interested
 in hearing from them (I sugest presonal E-Mail), wether and how the
 networked with Redhat and wether they have an arrangement with Redhat
 on using Cygwin in their product description.

 Be assured that this is not the only activity on my site to get
 things clear etc, so no need for further hint on the, legally
 speaking, unreliability of such war stories.)


"Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com> writes:

> On 11 May 2007 19:34, ls-cygwin-2006 wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
>   If the FAQ said anything on the subject, I would have told you so.  Because
> it doesn't, I didn't.  How much simpler could it be?

Thanks, I got that. My comment was only a hint there could have been a
type of useful information that has not to be gotten from Redhat in
writing. If "it" refers to the -- sadly non-existent -- information
I've been asking for, your statement is certainly incorrect.

> Of course, you could always read the FAQ yourself.  It's all there
> in plain view on the website.  There are no secret hidden bits.

Yes, I have. The logo+trademark are no mentioned here, hence my
original question: I might have overlooked some other FAQish document.

>>> 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.
>
>   If you don't want advice, why on earth are you asking for it?  I was merely

That's an easy one: I asked for advice on sources on certain
information, not for advice on time management.

> observing that if someone on this list tells you "Yes, this is ok", you have
> no way of knowing if they are correct.  

You're still confusing "giving permission" with "referring someone to
a document where a general permission is stated or perhaps a policy to
the effect that such a permission will not be forthcoming". The
Mozilla project, in example, has such a document which very clearly
spells out the rules for using (and not using) logos and trademarks
when redistributing. Such a document might have existed for Cygwin,
therefore my question.

My whole anger is fueled by the impression, you and Christopher seem
to try to create, that it was completely unreasonable to expect
information on the possible existence of such a document here -- at
this list -- and that I actually had asked the list for permission to
use the logo and/or trademark.

Once and for all: I didn't. And if I ever only slightly created that
impression I should have made it abundantly clear by now, that that
was never my intention.

> Similarly, if someone on the list
> tells you "No, that's not ok", you also have no way of knowing if they are
> correct. 

Well, therefore there is the concept of "sources", as we say in the
trade -- something you refer other people to as the source of your
information where they can verify (your assertion or wether the source
is authentic). 

Again, again again: I DID NOT ASK FOR _OPINIONS_. Thanks for taking
note of that.

> Finally, whatever anyone on this list tells you, is not binding on
> RedHat, who are the only people whose opinion has any validity.

Redhats "opinion" has no validity, only their declarations of will or
intent.

>   It may be only my opinion that gathering unconfirmed and unguaranteed
> information that you would only have to discard and go find from a verifiable
> source anyway is a waste of time, but I'm at a loss to imagine how it could
> possibly justify your time and effort.

See above. You're confused, but perhaps I have still not been clear
enough. But I did not ask on advice on time or ressource management.

>>> 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: 
>
>> Strange that the question never turned up.

> Well it didn't, and if you aren't going to bother believing the answer to
> your question when it is given to you, why bother asking it?

Did I say, I don't believe you? I'm only surprised it didn't (AFAIK
know "strange" is also an exclamation of surprise).


>>> 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 ...)
>
>   I don't have a low opinion of the people on this list.  Saying that they are
> not lawyers is a fact, 

> and speculation about legal matters from someone who

I didn't ask about speculation.

> has not studied law is by definition uninformed.  

So if the someone from, say, the mozilla list, points me to the
mozilla document on these issues, he is just unformed, but if a lawyer
did the same this very same act suddenly becomes something profound?

> The emotional cast you perceive in that unremarkable statement of
> fact is entirely in your imagination.

It's more that I seriously doubt that all that pseudo-responsible
goobledegook surrounding legal issues is anythng but a useless trained
reflex: People can talk about law as well as they a can talk about
processors or programming languages. Those who are listening have to
weight credibility according to their criteria and verify where
necessary, the öast being a responsibility nobody will take away from
you. This applies to legal issues as well as to programming languages,
so it's beyond me, why people feel called to issue sinister warnings
and cast protections spells (IANAL, IANAL) as soon as a legal issue
becomes the topic, but never when talking about better programming
languages, bugs or how you can fix your car.


>> 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. 
>

> Nobody says that.  

But you certainly did.

> It's just that information from other sources has no guarantee of
> accuracy and comes with no kind of indemnity should it turn out to
> be incorrect.

Only lawyers speak the truth, everyone else is just uninformed? I
think you're still confusing "giving information" with making
statements about contracts (declarations of will or intent).


>> You can, and wether you get your information from a lawyer or not,
>> you're still under the obligation to verify the information.

>   Well exactly: anything you find out from a non-legal source, you have to go
> and ask a lawyer *anyway*.

See, now we are approaching the heart of the matter: If I had
information telling me that the standing policy is this and that, I
only would have to ask the lawyer just to confirm that or clear up
some fuzzy borderline cases. without any background I have to ask
about a complete series of scenarios from "Can I include Logo and
Trademark" to "And what if I delete anything trademarked from the
distribution".

>   Or you could just save your time and go straight to the lawyer, since that
> makes the first step redundant.  That is why I offered the advice that it
> would not be worth your time and effort.

Are you a lawyer or a consultant? Is the indemnification coming with
your advice? Or can I just ignore it, because it's a laymans view on
what I should do? (I hope you see how stupid that is going to become
if we insist on other people taking our advice of not taking other
peoples advice and/or information -- at the end everone has to look
after himself)


>> 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.
>
>   Yes, and if there was any such information, I and everyone else would have
> told you it.  But there isn't, and so we didn't, and now you are raving like a
> lunatic, because you appear to have the paranoid belief that there IS such
> information and everybody is withholding it from you.  

NO I DONT. NO I DONT. NO I DONT. Clear now?

>   THERE IS NO SUCH INFORMATION.

Fine. But just do not argue as if it had been completely unreasonable
to ask the question at the beginning -- which you still do. 

I never said in my later post, that I THINK there is such information,
I said I THOUGHT, and THEREFORE I ASKED and therefore I resent being
talked to as I should never have asked, since I think it was the
reasonable thing to do.

>>> 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.
>
>   Yes, that is exactly what you were told from the very first reply.  What

Not from you or Christopher: The FIRST thing you did, was, in effect,
not to say "there is no such document, ask Redhat", but "Why do you
even ask, this is useless" -- implying, simply, I should never have
asked.

> else were you expecting?  Every single person on the list to each
> reply saying "Well, I don't know anything about what your asking"?


Oh, well. Take, eg. Christopher. He could have said: "There is no such
document. Actually, you might laugh, the question until now has never
arisen. Best write to ..., this is, AFAIK, the depertmartment/Person
at Redhat handling these things". Now contrast that with the answer I
got, and you might understand my annoyance. No, perhaps not, since you
insist to continue like this.

> That would be
> ludicrous.  Nobody is withholding information from you, it's that nobody HAS
> any information.

And I didn't say that -- Am communicating this badly, or is your
interpretation of what I'm writing slightly distorted?

Forgive me, it was never my intention to take on the top dogs here:
Your position, whatever is undisputed. Note that, as sad as it is to
say, my whole trouble stems from an attempt to write at the CD-Cover,
more or less, something like: "This great software comes from the nice
guys at Cygwin who make a really great toolset"

>> (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.
>


>   No, it's your arrogant, suspicious-minded, paranoid, ill-mannered approach -
> accusing everyone of maliciously not telling you what you wanted to know

I didn't Dave, if you read my replies. And you did, BTW, not state
that there is no such information, nor did Christopher. I quote:

Christopher:

 | It is unclear to me what kind of insight you expect to get about
 | matters like these which would be definitive enough to actually
 | allow you to distribute a product.

 | If the 75% of the mailing list thinks you're ok do you think that
 | Red Hat will just take that as gospel?

 | If you want to get definitive answers about this, then you should
 | be asking Red Hat, not this mailing list.

You: 

 | You need to get it in writing, from Redhat's legal dept.  Nothing
 | else is worth your time and effort.  To the best of my knowledge
 | there has never been any discussion before of anything remotely
 | like this issue on the mailing list.  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.  That
 | would almost certainly be /less/ worthwhile to you than hearing
 | nothing at all.

(There is a information here, and I thanked you for that: I don't
thank you for all that advice surrounding "my time and effort" or
"uninformed speculation" -- accept, kindly, that I know why I
asked. I'd even apologize for my perhaps slightly harsh reaction on
that if it weren't for your accusation of paranoia: I have the right,
I think to defend myself against yours and Christophers insinuation
that it is just irrational or stupid to ask my original question here).

And I think now an apology from you and Christopher for first putting
my motives in doubt then accusing me of paranoia would be in order
now.

> rather than just accepting that the lack of a reply was because of lack of
> information - that is giving you so much trouble.

If it would have been a lack of reply, nothing untowards would have
happened. Unfortunately you two just didn't omit replying.

I just see that

 | Nothing
 | else is worth your time and effort. 

 | 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.

actually proved to be a self-fullfilling prophecy: The ratio of things
I've not been asking for to useful information in this thread is
approaching very large numbers.

I'm out of that thread now. Those who can read what I wrote, will, I
hope, at least now understand what wrote or did or intented to say or
ask. Concerning you I've probably to live with that paranoia
accusation. I seriously regret it, since I've been reading the cygwin
list for (I think) more than 1 and half year now, enjoyed most of your
contributions and never would have dreamed our first encounter would
end like that. But there is a limit to what I have to take even from
the top dogs.

Good bye.

-- 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/