Re: Web guidelines for use of GNOME Trademark

[Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>]

On Sad, 2003-11-22 at 00:37, Carlos Morgado wrote:
> > notice and during normal business hours, Licensee shall permit Licensor
> > or any representative duly authorized by Licensor access to Licensee's
> > premises to inspect the quality of Licensee's GNOME Products and
> 
> No. Are you on crack ? No, really.

Well for a shop selling goods its not that unreasonable. Think about the
case of the foundation getting lots of letters about its shirts falling
apart and having holes and bad stitching. There is some case for being
able to inspect the usage of the mark - its just for most cases thats
"run mozilla" so the proposal needs more care to be reasonable.

> > 	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.

Thats normal. 
> 
> > 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!

It says two things IMHO. Firstly "No warranty" - ie if its not a very
good foot then tough. No different to GPL software. The second one is
that you need to check validity of rights stuff. Maybe someone else owns
a very similar gnome foot logo in your country for example - there is no
way the foundation can know. 

> I can't believe GNOME has come to this level of stupidity.

I'd give Tim a break for a bit - trademark stuff is not trivial. Lets
see if they can fix it to be something like the original proposals.

Alan