Subject: Re: Open Content woes
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 14:21:49 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "rms" == Richard Stallman <> writes:

    rms> I asked him about this copyright issue a few days ago, and
    rms> (as I reported) he said showing an application's window
    rms> decorations in a manual ought to be fair use.

But did you ask him about giving blanket permission to others, as the
GPL apparently does, to use that mark in any way they want?

How about the issue of contributing to infringement, in that even if
the GPL doesn't grant such permissions (and doesn't then make the GPL
itself void, q.v.), it doesn't specifically disclaim that and
therefore would tend to mislead non-lawyers into thinking that the
logo itself was a GPLed work?

    rms> Someone asked whether licensing a trademark for use in a
    rms> specific free book could mean forfeiting it.  I recently
    rms> asked our lawyer about a similar situation, and he said that
    rms> licensing X does not imply licensing Y.  Licensing the use in
    rms> screen shots in a manual would not imply licensing any other
    rms> use of the trademark.

Doesn't this then void the GPL, because the user does not have the
right to modify and redistribute certain parts of the work?  That is,
doesn't section 7 of version 2 now apply?

University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."