Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 02:20:00 -0700

Quoting David Woolley (forums@david-woolley.me.uk):

> It is very normal for marketing people.  

I find this entire conversation quite surreal, not to mention
effectively pointless -- but please feel do free to cite to me any one
example of any sticker on any software package boasting of it being
"[Foo] Public Licensed".

> "Microsoft" has a significance in the public mind that, say  "Mozilla" 
> doesn't have, so I think this is a real issue in terms of usability of 
> the licence.

So, you're saying that someone might attempt to use the name of that
company's licence in some fashion that might motivate it to sue that
person for trademark infringement, correct?  If so, so what?  I'm really
not at all clear on what your point is.

Philippe purported to be making various (bizarre) objection to the licence
itself on grounds of its mere name allegedly posing a trademark tort
hazard to all users of the licence text.  That was a peculiar and
substanceless objection, but at least was topical.  You seem to have no
such objection, so I am completely unclear on what point _you_ are
trying to make that has any conceivable relevance to this mailing list.

> The fear, uncertainty and doubt about its use means that it will only
> be used in contexts where the code has an association with Microsoft,
> e.g. it comes in part from Microsoft, or it is sample code in a third
> party contribution to the MSDN Journal, where, I imagine, Microsoft
> will encourage its use.

So, what, you're saying you don't understand trademark law, so you
figure nobody else will, either?