|| ||Greg KH <gregkh-l3A5Bk7waGM-AT-public.gmane.org> |
|| ||Quim Gil <quim.gil-xNZwKgViW5gAvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org> |
|| ||Re: Trademark compliance, name usage, etc. |
|| ||Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:35:00 -0700|
|| ||"meego-dev-WXzIur8shnEAvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org" <meego-dev-WXzIur8shnEAvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org>|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 09:02:35AM -0700, Quim Gil wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 17:40 +0200, ext Greg KH wrote:
> > Of course, a "real" cease-and-desist order would have to be filed for
> > any of this to be able to be properly discussed, which I think, is the
> > proper next step of the Linux Foundation if they really wish to persue
> > this issue.
> Greg, do you enjoy legal escalation? I'm sure nobody in this list does.
No, I don't, I'm just pointing out that you really don't have a legal
standing here to rely on, other than vague threats, which is totally
inappropriate given who you are making those threats to, and the history
> In marketing terms "Smeegol" is a perfect example of MeeGo brand
> dilution. You wouldn't have called it Smeegol if there would not have
> been MeeGo in the first place.
> Have you acted with malice? No
> Have you done it secretly? No
> Are you pursuing a success damaging the MeeGo project? No
> For all this reasons a cease-and-desist would be a bad (and probably
> pointless) approach. This is about common sense and community dialog
I agree, and as we have been working in good faith here, having the LF
suddenly object at a later date isn't our fault, it is theirs.
> You warned about your intentions in this list weeks ago. Somehow the
> Linux Foundation & MeeGo TSG didn't react at the time in the way they
> did when the posts about the Smeegol release came under their radar.
Um, one would assume that their radar is broken then, as the release
came out a few weeks ago :)
> Yes, this problem could have been solved with a simple rename weeks ago.
> Now you have extra work with a name change and the corresponding
> explanation. Still, Smeegol *is* a precedent of brand dilution and bad
> precendents are really bad for young brands. Ultimately your project
> depends on a bruight and successful MeeGo project and we kindly ask you
> to help on that by renaming your even younger project.
Um, no, I'm going to push back here.
Your project is relying on the bright and successful projects it builds
on, which are provided by others who happen to also be helping with the
Smeegol project. We all build on the shoulders of others, and our
community has a long and deep history of "fun" names for projects
showing where the basis comes from (GNU being one such example.)
I don't think you can honestly feel that the name "Smeegol" dilutes in
any way the base "Meego (tm)" branding, ESPECIALLY when you yourself
agree above that none of this was done in malice, was done in secret, or
even, was done in a way that was somehow not properly conveyed to the LF
WAY IN ADVANCE of exactly what was going to happen.
In this case, don't expect us to do extra work because the LF failed to
do any work on their part. That's totally unfair and unacceptable.
Oh, and also note, there are a number of real companies out there, using
the Meego brand name, and not using it in a way which the LF really
wants the Meego name to be used (replacing core components, using
copyrighted images incorrectly, etc.) The fact that the LF does nothing
to try to combat that, and yet, tries to disuade and cause extra work by
a group of community members not working for any company at all, seems
Not to mention legally dubious as there is no real company to go after
when trying to get the "Smeegol" name changed. :)
> Please pick something unrelated to "MeeGo", keep using the software
> following the linceses of each component, keep helping to the
> propagation and improvement of that software and all we will be happy in
> this happy MeeGo family.
We abided by the license of the components, which is all that you can
ask for in this environment. We also properly attribute the Meego (tm)
trademark, which too is all that you can ask for.
Listen, I know the MeeGo group really doesn't like to see these types of
"spin-offs", due to the past history involved where they felt that this
caused problems for them. But this is just a fact of the environment
that you are working in. When you release code, you can only rely on
the license of that code to be the enforcable thing. You can't
additionally try to do anything else.
You should embrace this type of thing, and encourage it, instead of
constantly trying to restrict it, and sowing confusion. That is what
you did with Fedora when they came to you all for guidance, and what you
have done here. It only hurts you in the end, not us.
to post comments)