Re: Web guidelines for use of GNOME Trademark

[Carlos Morgado <chbm gnome org>]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:45:50, Eric Baudais wrote:

> > >
> > >X.	DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES
> > >
> > >	THE LICENSOR MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE GNOME LOGO,
> INCLUDING
> > >VALIDITY OF THE LICENSOR'S RIGHTS IN ANY COUNTRY, AND HEREBY DISCLAIMS
> > >ALL WARRANTIES THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE IMPLIED BY LAW, INCLUDING
> >
> > AHAHAHHAHA. good one! that was funny.
> >
> >
> > >WARRANTIES AGAINST VIOLATION OR INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK, LITERARY, OR
> > >PERSONAL RIGHTS, OR OTHER PROPRIETARY RIGHTS.
> >
> > OHHHHHH. This was funny too! Not only you say if I get sued by a 3rd  
> party
>
> > I'm on my own but you TRY to disclaim your civil and criminal
> > responsabilities too!
>
> Are you expecting the GNOME Foundation to indemnify everyone who uses
> our trademark against prosecution?  I sure don't want us to be held

No, but that whole text is null and void in Portugal. Not only you can't  
disclaim "all warranties that might otherwise be implied by law". If it's in  
Law, comercial contracts can't overwrite it. The disclaim of IP violations a  
priori might even be consider bad faith.

Also, under such a strict agreement I at least expect a note of  
responsibility over the foundation's IP claims on licensed material. Not that  
I'd underwrite to such an agreement anyway ;)

> liable for anyone who we give permission to use the trademark for a
> benign purpose and then violate a local law and held us responsible!
> I think this limitation of warranty clause is one of the few good
> parts.

I read that the other way. (I'm not a native speaker - the legalese might be  
totally confusing me!) I read that has, "if you get sued for using licensed  
material and it's actually our fault, well, tough luck!"

> > I'll stop reading this crap now. And if something like this comes into
> > existence I'm fairly sure Balsa won't be the only project becoming a
> > "NotGnome Project".
>
> The reason this was posted to the foundation list is for the members
> to give comments and suggestions.  It is obvious this trademark

I was just reading and typing my first reactions, trying to keep faithfull to  
my outrage. As GNOME is an highly community driven project that might be the  
best way to evalute this kind of stuff.

> document is not going to fit our purpose.  You have raised some more
> good points which Alan hadn't touched on and many he did.  I hope Tim
> will take these comments back to the Foundation's lawyers and rework
> parts of the document.

I like the dual logo sugestions. I'd also sugest this might be a good start  
for a *commercial* agreement with companies as it seems highly geared towards  
the corporate world and non commercial uses by non-companies  might be ruled  
by a diferent, more relaxed agreement. This license would keep the legal  
assles out of the way (higly important! I don't want to deal with legalese at  
a personal level for something I'm doing as an hobby) but keeping the rights  
of the Foundation to revoke use for materials considered non gnome related
(lets face it, we *need* a GNOME Pr0n viewer! :))

Regards

--
Carlos Morgado - chbm(a)ma.ssive.net - http://chbm.net/ 
0x1FC57F0A FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A