On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 04:44:32PM -0500, Ibrahim Haddad wrote: > * > * > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 04:02:38PM -0500, Ibrahim Haddad wrote: > > > Please visit: > > > > > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/linux-foundation-trademark-usage-guidelines(which<http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/linux-foundation-trademark-usage-guidelines%28which> > > > also includes correct and incorrect ways of using the mark) > > > > > > The link above is also reachable from: http://meego.com/about/trademark > > > > Yes, but again, those pages say: > > Trademark Usage > > > > MeeGo™ is a trademark of the Linux Foundation. MeeGo may be used > > in accordance with the Linux Foundation Trademark Policy in > > association with a product that has fulfilled all requirements > > of the MeeGo Compliance Program for that product and for the > > specific version and release of MeeGo that is indicated. > > > > And the link to the "MeeGo Compliance Program" say: > > Compliance Program > > > > We are still in the process of finalizing our Compliance > > Program, but will update this page with the details soon. > > > > So, we are back at square one. > > > > * > > The compliance program is driven by setting the compliance specs (discussed > on meego-dev):,*http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance
But that referrs to MeeGo 1.1, what about shipping something that matches 1.0? Like what Andrew has up and running? And even then, that's just a "draft" proposal, right? How can you "certify" to a draft at this point in time? > So basically, if someone/company wants to use the name MeeGo as part of > their product name, they need to respect: > 1- trademark guidelines - published at > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/linux-foundation-trademark-usage-guidelines That's fine, trademark law is great, and my original proposal meets those rules, right? > 2- MeeGo compliance guidelines or specs (ongoing project - status can be > tracked at: http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance) As nothing is final, this can not be required at this point in time. So my original wording should still be fine, especially as the project is "based on" and not stating that it is compliant in any way, nor using any trademarked artwork or branding that you are trying to hold out for only "compliant" releases. Of course, the big joke is that there is no "compliant" releases yet as there is no spec, so we'll just ignore the shipping MeeGo distros from different companies at the moment :) So finally, does the Linux Foundation have any objection to the use of the following terminology: Smeegol, an openSUSE release based on the netbook user interface that came from the Meego(TM)* project. * Meego is a trademark of the Linux Foundation. And if there are objections, how should it be rephrased? Remember, you want "respins" like this, don't start squashing them... thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
