Trademark license agreement status

[Richard Körber]

> Not at all Richard, as I stated in that post, I was trying to collect
> all of the various changes that had come up so far, and then to
> continue the open conversation that had been going on.  I'm not sure
> how one could interpret that as ending the conversation, but I'm sorry
> I wasn't clear enough about it.

No, it wasn't meant that way. Sorry...

The conversation ended with my question if putting the trademark sign
note to the site's imprint would be sufficient, which remained
unanswered. Later you posted the new draft, which did not address that
concern at all. Nobody posted a comment to the draft for about a week,
which actually irritates me, but there seems to be some kind of consensus.

If I am the only one who is having concerns with the "Permitted Use"
section, the problem is obviously me and not the TLA.

> I'm not sure what this means -- where do you believe you have to rely
> on hope?  If we know the answer to that, it would help us figure out
> where the agreement might be unclear, so we can fix it.

It's section 4 "Permitted Use", along with the Attachment C. I tried to
explain it in the thread "Red Hat Comments on License Agreement".

> Looking back, I think there may be an open question from you about
> whether using trademark symbols in an imprint page would satisfy the
> agreement.  Did we miss some other question that you feel hasn't been
> answered?

No, it was exactly that question... :-)

-- 
Richard