Trademark license agreement status

Paul W. Frields stickster at
Wed Sep 9 00:29:42 UTC 2009

On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 07:44:06PM -0400, Scott Glaser wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:32:30 -0500
> "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at> wrote:
> > In response to the insightful comments we've received over the past
> > few months, and some great input gathered here in the last few weeks,
> > the trademark license agreement has been updated.  The current text
> > continues to be available on the wiki:
> > 
> >
> > 
> > I'm interested to hear how the changes made to address our most recent
> > conversations translate to people's satisfaction with the current
> > licensing terms.  We can continue this discussion transparently here
> > on the list, where all community members can benefit.  However, anyone
> > with a special situation is always welcome to email me to discuss it,
> > and I look forward to hearing from you in either venue.
> > 
> > As I hope everyone has seen, our legal counsel is excited at the
> > opportunity to do what I get to do every day.  In this case, that's
> > working with the community, to create a trademark licensing process
> > that mutually respects all the participants and effectively protects
> > and promotes the Fedora brand.  Once everyone's generally satisfied
> > with terms, I look forward to working with each of you to establish a
> > license that helps you continue doing a great job of promoting Fedora
> > to the wider community.
> > 
> Paul,
> I see four issues with the document in its current state:
> 1. There is no verbage defining what is cause for "termination or
> expiration of the License". 
> It would be good if examples were included in the document explaining
> what is cause for termination or expiration of the license.
> 2. Why is there no verbiage in the TLA that the the registrant of
> the domain name would be reimbursed for their remaining expenses
> (domain registration/transfer fees) if the domain is registered for X
> amount of time and that time exceeds the life of the license?
> I think this would foster a better relationship with the community by
> doing so, as the expenses would be trivial to the Licensor should a
> domain need to be turned over.
> 3. What is done if the trademark is sold or the licensor goes out of
> business?
> Big question here, but it should be addressed in the agreement.
> 4. What is content control? Also what would be defined as objectionable
> by Licensor?
> This is very important to all Fedora Community members that publish
> Community based sites.

Excellent, these are all good points and we'll try to address all of
them in short order.  Thanks for itemizing these, since it will make
the discussion easier as we go.

The only question I have about the questions -- heh, sorry -- is on
"What is content control?".  From my search through the agreement, I
only see that phrase used as a heading/title for a paragraph.  The
paragraph itself therefore defines what content control means in the
agreement, so I'm not sure what your question means here.  Does that
make any sense?  Can you suggest a better title?

By the way, I had a little chuckle because "verbiage" usually means
"excessive wording" -- which may be what you intended! :-)

Paul W. Frields                      
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717   -  -  -  - stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list