Please, if you're a packager, take a moment and go read this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Trademarks_in_Summary...

> So, under this new guideline should I just remove the ®'s? As one who was also bitten by this, my understanding is... yes. Even better would be to consider avoiding the use of those (possibly trademarked) terms altogether.

Also just to be clear, we shouldn't rebuild just for this, should we?

Please, if you're a packager, take a moment and go read this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Trademarks_in_Summary... After talking with Red Hat Legal about how we should be handling trademarks in package summaries and descriptions, we came to the conclusion that it would be far easier (and less risky for Red Hat) if we did not use "(TM)" or "(R)" notations at all. This does not mean that you can use trademarks freely, you still need to be careful in how you use them. When in doubt, try not to use it. If you have questions, you can either email me or fedora-legal(a)redhat.com.

On 2009-01-30 at 9:09:51 -0500, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de&gt; wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> Please, if you're a packager, take a moment and go read this: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Trademarks_in_Summary... >> >> >> After talking with Red Hat Legal about how we should be handling >> trademarks in package summaries and descriptions, we came to the >> conclusion that it would be far easier (and less risky for Red Hat) if >> we did not use "(TM)" or "(R)" notations at all. This does not mean that >> you can use trademarks freely, you still need to be careful in how you >> use them. When in doubt, try not to use it. If you have questions, you >> can either email me or fedora-legal(a)redhat.com. > IMO, your advice collides with "fair use" of trademarks, in particular > when commonly used names actually refer to trademarked items or when > package even contain something trademarked. > > Cf. e.g. > http://www.sgi.com/products/software/opengl/license.html > http://www.sgi.com/products/software/opengl/trademarks.html Not really. Please keep in mind that SGI's interpretation of fair use is sketchy at best. In the US, only the owner of a trademark is permitted to use the (R) symbol, and SGI describes it as fair use for anyone to use it.

The general rule (as a result of US Supreme Court decisions) is that no more of the trademark should be used than necessary for the legitimate purpose, and that confusion should be avoided whenever possible.

On 2009-01-30 at 11:05:44 -0500, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de&gt; wrote: > Then let me ask differently: > RH prefers _us_ to refer to Microsoft instead of Microsoft(TM), rsp. to > Red Hat instead of Red Hat(TM), rsp. to Fedora instead of Fedora (TM) in > documents, packages, etc? This guideline only applies to package Summaries and Descriptions. However, the answer to your question is yes. Specifically, unless we (Fedora/Red Hat) have entered into a license that may require that we mark a trademark, we should not do so. We should use the trademark properly, all capital letters or at least initial cap, plus as an adjective, not a noun, but not designate with any symbol. The symbols have legal ramifications, so having it wrong may cause more trouble than not doing it at all, > This collides with any common practice I've seen so far. > > Documents referring to trademarked items typically either use ... > "Windows(TM)" or "Windows" accompanied with a footnote disclaimer > "Windows is a trademark of Microsoft ...". > >> The general rule (as a result of US Supreme Court decisions) is that no >> more of the trademark should be used than necessary for the legitimate >> purpose, and that confusion should be avoided whenever possible. > > OK, I maintain a package originating from SGI(TM) called Inventor(TM) > (a trademark of SGI)? What to do about it? > > To me, acknowledging their trademarks in Fedora(TM) is fair use. If you wish to add "SGI and Inventor are trademarks of SGI" to the description, you can do so. However, you should drop the (TM)s.

On 2009-01-30 at 14:46:36 -0500, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Would you say we should treat trademarked terms similarly in Fedora > documentation? If so, I'll note that in the Style Guide for future > reference. I'll ask RH Legal. The advice given was strictly in reference to package Summary and Descriptions.

They advised that the same advice applies to Documentation. Never use "tm" or "(R)". If we are obliged by contract to mention other trademarks in a legend, add the legend as required by the contract. In addition, our documentation should contain the disclaimer: "All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners." ~spot

> Since these packages are bound to those trademarked names/patented > > devices there should be a way to say thier proper name (fair use). > > Software written to work with logithek should be described as such, > > because the vendor decided to call thier product logithek. I don't see > > another way to say this without the trademarked name. Nobody said that logitech should not be used in the name. You should not say that your software _Is_ logitech and don't use (R) or (TM).

The question is if everyone should be bound by these laws. Since the programmer, the code, the idea (anything) originates outside of the us (for packagers that are not in the us). it is only "shipped" (I'm not sure if this is even the right word for this) to a server that's somewhere in the us. So why should someone be bound (a programmer and a user outside of the us) by laws just becase the software goes through a server in us.

I completely understand your point. The laws have always been a stage for wide range of interpretation. And I'm sure there're many more ideas how this should be understood and implemented. Unfortunately because of the fact that the legal Guardian of the Fedora project is bound by the US laws we should comply with these, too.

On 2009-01-31 at 9:38:08 -0500, "Joshua C." <joshuacov(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: > Unfortunately > because of the fact that the legal Guardian of the Fedora project is > bound by the US laws we should comply with these, too. > Maybe Paul W. Frields should take the next step and make the project > "completely" independant (this is my personal opinion). We've been down this road a few times before, but there are serious logistical problems. If Fedora was a US non-profit entity, that entity would still have to comply with US laws (not to mention the financial issues around where the majority of Fedora's funding comes from). Even if Fedora incorporated as a separate entity in a legal no-mans-land (like say, the Isle of Man *cough, cough, cough*), they would be passing the risk onto US mirrors and users. I'm of the opinion that Fedora raises awareness of the issues that stifle innovation, both in the US and worldwide. There are options for individuals who are not bound by such laws (or who choose to be conscientious objectors). By playing by "the rules" we set a foundation for being able to document how broken laws are making developers and users suffer, and present that material as briefs in cases in In re Bilski: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080409033837121 If you're completely uninterested in trying to fix the system as a participant, there are other distributions which don't care about legal issues. I'm proud that Fedora does its best to protect not just itself, but also its users from legal risk. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list