Adobe legal pretty much explained the situation as I did. They said that it is common to have the second sentence about “No other license..” when trademarks are used in content that has open licenses. So, AIUI, no need to worry about who can fix missing attributions.
Thanks, -Alex On 4/28/15, 8:21 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >Update: I have committed the files and fixed as many trademark lists as >Justin and I could find quickly. > >IMO, the sentence starting with “No other license..” is being >mis-interpreted. I have to ask the Adobe legal folks about a different >issue today so I will use that opportunity to ask for clarification on >this sentence. > >IANAL, but just for the fun of speculating, I would guess that, given the >prior sentence mentions a list of Adobe trademarks, that the trademarks >referenced in the second sentence is that same list. And the reason for >the non-standard second sentence is because it isn’t standard for Adobe >trademarks to be mixed into content with an open license, especially a >license associated with an entity to which Adobe has already donated one >of its trademarks, and with even more complexity, has a license to >continue to use the donated trademark on its existing products. I’m not >sure how lawyers interpret words, but for me, the bigger context often >helps prevent taking individual phrases out of context. > >But I’ve been surprised many times before, so I’m not wagering anything on >my guess. I’ll post another update when I hear back. > >-Alex > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
