On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Richard Earnshaw wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 14:12, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> Obviously FreeBSD don't see it the same way. Atleast I can't find
>> McKusicks name among the FreeBSD release engineering people.
>> And work McKusick have done lately looks like it has been used in all
>> BSD-derived systems.
>>
>> I'd be rather surprised if this actually was a reason for avoiding the
>> daemon. If it is so, we really should drop the "BSD" moniker as well. That
>> should be an even hotter potato than the daemon.
>
> The BSD moniker isn't subject to copyright AFAIK.  The daemon clearly
> is.

True.

> I very much doubt that the letters BSD could be copyrighted (but I'm not
> a lawyer).  Trademark is much more likely, but even then the laws on
> trademarking are very different to those on copyright, and I understand
> that trademarks have to be claimed rather than being assumed by default
> (as is the case for copyright).

I'm not a lawyer either. But copyrights are rather specific, aren't they? 
I mean, you can hardly claim copyright to every rendition of a demon just 
because you've drawn one, which you do have copyright on.

 	Johnny

Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol