[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: GPL version 4.
Given that "gnu" is the name of an animal and that trademarks are
on generic words (c.f. Microsoft's problem with "Windows"), it would be
day in court to see the FSF defend their use of the name of an animal as
Richard M Stallman wrote:
"GNU" is our trademark, and that is a good thing, since all you could
achieve by calling your own license "GNU General Public License" is
confusion. It would be as if someone developed a GNU/Linux distro and
called it "NetBSD".
Referring to trademark law as "intellectual property" is misleading
and confusing. It is likewise misleading and confusing to refer to
copyright law as "intellectual property", or to refer to patent law as
"intellectual property". That term leads people to be "for
intellectual property" or "against intellectual property", which are
both simplistic views. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
for more explanation.
Main Index |
Thread Index |