Trademark license agreement status

Robert 'Bob' Jensen bob at
Tue Sep 8 17:42:02 UTC 2009

----- "Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta at> wrote:

> Unfortunately, I can't do much about inappropriate private comments
> that have been directed at you...or inappropriate private comments
> directed at anyone.  How much of the heat in the public discussion is
> spill over from private communications where a line was crossed and
> someone got offended and there weren't others in the conversation to
> work on smooth over the discord? I don't know, but I'm guessing its a
> majority of it...for everybody who is showing a little fray around
> the
> edges on this issue.  Another reason I personally appreciate the
> legal
> reps willingness to come out on the public list and have a
> discussion.
> I understand that you don't like having the TLA exist at all.  I get
> it.  I think we can all agree that legal issues blow monkey chunks.
> Legal issues which intersect community interests...even more so.    
> I
> really wish there was a pre-existing copyleft approach to trademark
> that still allowed the trademark to be enforcible for a license. But
> I'm not aware of such a construction.   As it stands right now we
> have
> to make a choice with regard to keeping the trademark in an
> enforceable state.  I think Glezos summed up the underlying issue. Is
> protecting the trademark long term worth the intangible short term
> cost?  Its a very difficult question.  We seemed to have survived the
> introduction of the CLA for contributors even though there was heat
> when it was introduced.

It was pointed out that "" is available, I would never register it and I would expect that it be dealt with by Red Hat Legal. I know that the TLA or some other channel is needed for them to do so don't get me wrong. I hope that the issues will be worked out, I have faith at this time they will. I also hope it can be a model for other groups that are similar to the community we have.

-- Bob

More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list