AbiWord/Abiword/abiWord/abiword (was: Re: Debian, AbiWord, and Trademarks)

Would the following suggestion work?

Keep 'AbiWord' trademarked. Allow it to be used only to describe
products which are similar to Dom's AbiWord (say, less than 1%
difference in code lines, and less than 1% difference in GUI look and feel).
But allow 'abiword' (no capital letters) to be used for anything which
claims any relationship with Dom's AbiWord.

Then Debian will use only 'abiword' to describe the package and be free
to modify it to its heart's content.

Dom and the world will trust that Debian do not have the self-interest
to confuse people by using 'abiword' to describe packages, which process
digital camera images for the purpose of emphasizing nude women eating
blue cucumbers in the images.

                                              --- Omer
My own blog is at http://www.livejournal.com/users/tddpirate/

My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
I may be affiliated in any way.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> First, IANAL, though I have taken some IP law classes.
> What follows should not be construed as legal advice.
>
> First, I'd appreciate if you would stop mentioning
> AbiWord as anything more than just an example in your
> ongoing discussions. It's inflammatory, misleading and
> IMO rude. AbiWord doesn't have TM restrictions. TMs in
> themselves have restrictions and responsibilities on
> the part of their owners and its users. The term
> "AbiWord" is merely trademarked.
>
> I couldn't make TMs more strict if I tried. Well,
> maybe if I had something akin to MSFT's lobbying
> power. But anyway... I can pretty much only choose to
> license the TMs to other people, go after alleged
> infringers, or decide not to. If I decide it's not
> worth going after infringers, the TM goes the way of
> "escallator," "aspirin" and the dodo bird, becomes
> genericized, and isn't a TM any more. Poof. And
> (intentionally or not) AbiWord is being painted as the
> Bad Guy (tm). That little TM blurb on the website is
> some non-lawyer's _interpretation_ of TM law, offers
> itself up as a guideline at best, was not written by
> me, probably does not accurately represent my feelings
> on the issue, and may very well be wrong.
>
> Neither Debian nor any other Linux distro has asked me
> about licensing the TMs. It's not clear to me that you
> would have to. It's not clear to me that you wouldn't
> have to.
>
> That said, this issue and discussion should in no way
> be made specific to AbiWord. In a greater sense, it
> shouldn't even be made specific to Debian, though
> Debian-legal is probably a good place to kick off such
> a discussion.
>
> There is no shortage of other registered trademarked
> software in Debian and other GNU/Linux distributions.
> OpenOffice, Mozilla, Apache, Evolution, Gnome, and
> untold others have registered Trademarks. Even pieces
> of software that aren't registered *may* have some
> valid trademark claim. This includes everything from
> "gLabels" to "ls".
>
> The thing about Trademarks is that if their owners
> don't protect them, the TMs become worthless.
>
> Debian, as a distributor of TM'd products, have
> certain "fair-use" rights to the products they
> distribute. For example if I'm Walmart and sell "Coca
> Cola" in aisle 3, I have a right to advertize that I
> sell "Coca Cola". No TM is being abused or diluted.
>
> The issue becomes more hazy in the Free Software world
> when you bring up similar and/or derivitive works. If
> Debian took an AbiWord tarball produced by us, and
> then shipped it, would Debian be "in the clear"?
> Almost certainly. But if it had 1 patch? 10 patches?
> 100? Philisophical (and legal) questions such as what
> exactly constitutes a derivitive work and the rights
> afforded thereto come into play. What constitutes TM
> confusion and dilution? Is "ls" a generic term? And et
> cetera.
>
> The GPL, as I understand it, affords you the right to
> produce derivative works. It does not, however, afford
> you the right to call *any* of your derivative works
> "AbiWord". Or "Evolution". Or "Mozilla". Or "ls". Only
> a full understanding of TM law would let you know
> whether you're in the clear there. The GPL and similar
> licenses are silent on the issue of TM. I personally
> believe that is a good idea.
>
> I believe that Debian and other Linux may well be
> within your fair-use rights with respect to AbiWord's
> TM and other product's TMs. But, IANAL. You'd do well
> to consult with several if you care this much.
>
> If Debian were to come up with some sort of TM
> license, I'd be more than happy to review it and
> possibly sign it. I'm sure that a great many other TM
> owners would as well. But I'm sure that a great many
> people and corporations may not have such warm and
> fuzzy feelings, and that at least 1 TM owner has
> fallen off the face of the Earth. You may have to stop
> shipping said products, or may have to start changing
> their names, logos, artwork, and etc. dramatically.
>
> With all of that said, am I going to sue Debian for TM
> infringement? Unlikely, unless you make the "C" key
> insert porno or something. The thought had honestly
> never crossed my mind until you brought it up. But
> such are the affairs of Debian-legal. I'm not sure
> whether you're looking for trouble or if you're just
> being proactive.
>
> Best regards,
> Dom
>
> --- Andy Korvemaker
> <lists.abiword@akorvemaker.fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi. In the most recent Debian Weekly News
>>(http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2004/41/) there
>>is mention of AbiWord
>>and trademark "issues". It refers to a discussion
>>started on the
>>Debian-Legal mailing list
>>
>
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00236.html).
>
>>In a nutshell, some Debian people are again
>>wondering if AbiWord's
>>trademark use restrictions prevent them from
>>distributing Abiword in its
>>current form with its current name in Debian. The
>>discussion is also
>>looking at the issue of trademarks in general.
>>
>>In reading through the tread, I did not see any
>>mention was made of
>>Dom's response to some trademark questions earlier
>>this year
>>
>
> (http://www.abisource.com/mailinglists/abiword-dev/2004/Jul/0141.html).
>
>>I'm not sure if there's much that can be done right
>>now, but I saw it
>>and figured other people might want to be aware that
>>it's apparently an
>>issue (though people following IRC would probably
>>already be aware).
Received on Tue Oct 19 23:35:50 2004