Talk:Draft Version 0.0.1 - Revision history

Pam: Removing requirement that marks be retained explained

2013-05-02T15:20:26Z

Removing requirement that marks be retained explained

Pam: /* Uses we consider non-infringing */

2013-05-01T01:49:57Z

‎Uses we consider non-infringing

Pam: Explanation for removing definition of non-infringing use as nominative only

2013-05-01T01:21:53Z

Explanation for removing definition of non-infringing use as nominative only

Pam: /* What is "nominative" use? */

2013-05-01T01:09:48Z

‎What is "nominative" use?

Pam: Explanation for removing definition of nominative goods as use on authentic software.

2013-05-01T01:02:18Z

Explanation for removing definition of nominative goods as use on authentic software.

Pam: /* Uses we consider non-infringing */

2013-05-01T00:46:06Z

‎Uses we consider non-infringing

Pam: Explanation for reversion of change to title of "Uses we consider non-infringing"

2013-05-01T00:41:47Z

Explanation for reversion of change to title of "Uses we consider non-infringing"

Pam: added my name

2013-03-26T20:31:16Z

added my name

Pam: /* Official Branding Flag? */

2013-03-26T20:12:02Z

‎Official Branding Flag?

Pam: added my name

2013-03-26T19:27:45Z

added my name

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, 2 May 2013
Line 60:		Line 60:

	====Distribution of unmodified source code or unmodified executable code we have compiled====		====Distribution of unmodified source code or unmodified executable code we have compiled====
		+
		+	This was removed: "You should not remove our Work Marks or Logos from an unmodified distribution, nor should you replace them with your own trademarks or logos. This would mislead recipients into thinking that you, and not our project, are the source of the software." Removal based on discussion on mailing list that the requirement was not consistent with open source principles and ineffective. First mail in thread here: http://modeltrademarkguidelines.org/pipermail/discussion_modeltrademarkguidelines.org/2013-April/000012.html
		+
		+	[[User:Pam\|Pam]] ([[User talk:Pam\|talk]]) 11:20, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
		+

	=====Official Branding Flag?=====		=====Official Branding Flag?=====

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:49, 1 May 2013
Line 48:		Line 48:

	There are only two universes, infringing and non-infringing, and for some infringing uses one would have a license defense. I am concerned that characterizing non-infringing uses as "not requiring a license" creates a bit of legal limbo: are they infringing or not? If infringing, but nevertheless allowed for some unexplained reason, then one could argue that the use potentially invalidates the trademark. Characterizing them as "non-infringing," though, makes it clear to courts and users what potential set of legal standards might apply to a given type of use.		There are only two universes, infringing and non-infringing, and for some infringing uses one would have a license defense. I am concerned that characterizing non-infringing uses as "not requiring a license" creates a bit of legal limbo: are they infringing or not? If infringing, but nevertheless allowed for some unexplained reason, then one could argue that the use potentially invalidates the trademark. Characterizing them as "non-infringing," though, makes it clear to courts and users what potential set of legal standards might apply to a given type of use.
		+
		+	Another reason is that there is no duty to police non-infringing mark, so characterizing them as non-infringing will help ensure that one isn't imposed because of a misunderstanding about the character of the use.

	[[User:Pam\|Pam]] ([[User talk:Pam\|talk]]) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (EDT)		[[User:Pam\|Pam]] ([[User talk:Pam\|talk]]) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 A change was made to alter the title to "Uses which do not require a license," which I reverted. This is the explanation.
-There are only two universes, infringing and non-infringing. All the uses described in this section don't require a license because they are non-infringing. I am concerned that characterizing them as "not requiring a license" creates a bit of legal limbo: are they infringing or not? If infringing, but nevertheless allowed for some reason, then one could argue that the use potentially invalidates the trademark. Characterizing them as "non-infringing," though, makes it clear to courts and users what legal standard applies to a given type of use.
+There are only two universes, infringing and non-infringing, and for some infringing uses one would have a license defense. I am concerned that characterizing non-infringing uses as "not requiring a license" creates a bit of legal limbo: are they infringing or not? If infringing, but nevertheless allowed for some unexplained reason, then one could argue that the use potentially invalidates the trademark. Characterizing them as "non-infringing," though, makes it clear to courts and users what potential set of legal standards might apply to a given type of use.
 [[User:Pam|Pam]] ([[User talk:Pam|talk]]) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
 ====Distribution of unmodified source code or unmodified executable code we have compiled====

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:09, 1 May 2013
Line 170:		Line 170:

	I worry about characterizing the use of the mark on new copies of authentic goods as "nominative" because it would be an extensive of the law that can backfire - why wouldn't it also be nominative even where the goods are modified?		I worry about characterizing the use of the mark on new copies of authentic goods as "nominative" because it would be an extensive of the law that can backfire - why wouldn't it also be nominative even where the goods are modified?
		+
		+	[[User:Pam\|Pam]] ([[User talk:Pam\|talk]]) 21:09, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

	===Proper trademark use===		===Proper trademark use===

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:02, 1 May 2013
Line 163:		Line 163:
	====What is "nominative" use?====		====What is "nominative" use?====

		+	I removed the statement "Nominative use also includes the redistribution of 'authentic' goods. For our project, that means unmodified binaries that we have produced using our quality assurance process. When you are redistributing authentic goods, nominative use allows you to use the word mark version to describe what you are providing -- and of course, allows you to retain the logo on the product in the form you recieved it."
		+
		+	I don't believe that manufacturing identical goods and putting the trademark on them would be considered a nominative use. A nominative use is use of a third party mark to describe the third party's goods, not your own goods.
		+
		+	Allowing someone to create new goods, but nevertheless mark them as authentic goods, is a fairly unique situation in trademark law. It could be characterized as a license (e.g., in the way that you would give an OEM manufacturer a license to use the marks on goods it manufactures for you). Instead, at the moment in the guidelines, it's characterized as a non-infringing use because the intangible goods, the software code, is authentic, it is simply a new tangible "carrier" for the goods. I did it this way, versus characterizing it as a license, because it seems more consistent with open source principles. It's also more consistent with German case law granting some latitude in marking open source goods, even where they were modified.
		+
		+	I worry about characterizing the use of the mark on new copies of authentic goods as "nominative" because it would be an extensive of the law that can backfire - why wouldn't it also be nominative even where the goods are modified?

	===Proper trademark use===		===Proper trademark use===

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:46, 1 May 2013
Line 44:		Line 44:

	===Uses we consider non-infringing===		===Uses we consider non-infringing===
		+
		+	A change was made to alter the title to "Uses which do not require a license," which I reverted. This is the explanation.
		+
		+	There are only two universes, infringing and non-infringing. All the uses described in this section don't require a license because they are non-infringing. I am concerned that characterizing them as "not requiring a license" creates a bit of legal limbo: are they infringing or not? If infringing, but nevertheless allowed for some reason, then one could argue that the use potentially invalidates the trademark. Characterizing them as "non-infringing," though, makes it clear to courts and users what legal standard applies to a given type of use.
		+
		+	[[User:Pam\|Pam]] ([[User talk:Pam\|talk]]) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

	====Distribution of unmodified source code or unmodified executable code we have compiled====		====Distribution of unmodified source code or unmodified executable code we have compiled====

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:41, 1 May 2013
Line 104:		Line 104:

	===Uses we consider non-infringing===		===Uses we consider non-infringing===
		+
		+	A change was made to alter the title to "Uses which do not require a license," which I reverted. This is the explanation.
		+
		+	There are only two universes, infringing and non-infringing. All the uses described in this section don't require a license because they are non-infringing. I am concerned that characterizing them as "not requiring a license" creates a bit of legal limbo: are they infringing or not? If infringing, but nevertheless allowed for some reason, then one could argue that the use potentially invalidates the trademark. Characterizing them as "non-infringing," though, makes it clear to courts and users what legal standard applies to a given type of use.
		+
		+	[[User:Pam\|Pam]] ([[User talk:Pam\|talk]]) 20:41, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

	====Websites====		====Websites====

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:31, 26 March 2013
Line 38:		Line 38:

	I just deleted "top and second level," effectively prohibiting use in domain names altogether. It certainly is the easiest way to describe it and I think the corner cases (third level) don't happen often enough to make an issue of it. And a directory I wouldn't consider a "domain name" so it doesn't prohibit use in directories.		I just deleted "top and second level," effectively prohibiting use in domain names altogether. It certainly is the easiest way to describe it and I think the corner cases (third level) don't happen often enough to make an issue of it. And a directory I wouldn't consider a "domain name" so it doesn't prohibit use in directories.
		+
		+	Pam

	==Use for software==		==Use for software==

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:12, 26 March 2013
Line 54:		Line 54:

	-- [[User:Gerv\|Gerv]] ([[User talk:Gerv\|talk]]) 10:20, 25 March 2013 (EDT)		-- [[User:Gerv\|Gerv]] ([[User talk:Gerv\|talk]]) 10:20, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
		+
		+	Do you have problems with people modifying the code but enabling the flag? I agree we can't provide a guarantee that if you enable the flag then the software is ok -- I don't know enough about how the flag works but I'm assuming it isn't robust enough to make judgment calls about the quality of the changes, e.g., like flagging whether the software has passed a test suite. Is that something that could come about, though?
		+
		+	I've added it to a "use we do not consider infringing," so take a look and see whether it looks right. I added that you also not modify the code before compiling because of the above concern. I don't know whether this would lead to adoption of the flag-system, but it would at least get the concept out there.
		+
		+	Pam

	=====Media restrictions?=====		=====Media restrictions?=====

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 26 March 2013
Line 118:		Line 118:

	I went with "doesn't make a profit." I didn't want to say "non-profit" because I didn't want to suggest it has to be formal non-profit entity. Do you think that's unproblematic enough?		I went with "doesn't make a profit." I didn't want to say "non-profit" because I didn't want to suggest it has to be formal non-profit entity. Do you think that's unproblematic enough?
		+
		+	Pam

	====Promotional goods====		====Promotional goods====