Subject: Re: Open Content woes
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:16:05 -0400 (EDT)

[ In case you think that this discussion has died out (perhaps
  thankfully? :), it has instead moved to fsb@crynwr.com.  The few
  people who have cut down the CC list have done so while noting the
  trimming, not before. ]

Andrew C. Greenberg writes:
 > You simply can't license unless you control the licensee's use of
 > the license.  But the point of GNU was to leave licensees free to
 > make mush out of the original if they are so inclined.

As it currently stands (no license revisions needed), the GPL says
nothing about trademark licensing.  Therefore, even if you are using
trademarked GPL'ed software, you have no right to use the trademark.
And indeed, as Andrew has noted, you'll rightly never be granted a
right to use that trademark.

On the other hand, a certification mark *is* designed for use by third
parties (and never by the owner).  A certification mark requires the
same control over the licensee's use, so it can't just be a
certification mark in name, you have to actually certify the
software.

So, to make money off a certification mark, first you create Fear,
Uncertainty and Doubt about non-certified versions (which frankly is
counter to the message that OSI has been putting out -- which is that
many eyes make few bugs) and then dispel that FUD by certifying that
the software is neither fearful, uncertain, nor doubtful.

-- 
-russ nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | can outdo them. Homeschool!