Subject: RE: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Philippe Verdy" <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:36:58 +0200

Russ Nelson [mailto:nelson@crynwr.com] wrote:
> Philippe Verdy writes:
>  > My main concern against the Microsoft proposed licences is in their
> name:
>  > they contain the copyrighted and severely restricted trademark name
>  > "Microsoft", which restricts the way it can be cited.
> 
> A trademark may always be truthfully used without acknowledgement.
> 
> Insert appropriate disclaimers about how I'm not a lawyer, and even if
> I was a lawyer, this wouldn't be legal advice, and even if it was
> legal advice, you shouldn't act on it anyway, because I might be wrong.

A trademark you don't own can't be safely used for advertising another
competing product in every country. That's what I mean, it is unrelated to
the citation of a trademark in non competing domains.

Imagine Apple advertising its latest iPod with a featured Microsoft mark in
the presentation of the product... Or Disney cited when promoting another
non-Disney film...

Licenses are essential features of products that will need to be advertised
and named accordingly. The only concern is there: there must be a correct
way to refer to the licence name that does not infringe the protected
trademark: remember that trademarks are protected by domain of application,
and Microsoft's name is highly related to computer programs, exactly the
same domain where the proposed licence will be used and needed.