Trademark license agreement status

[Scott Glaser]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:29:42 -0400
"Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:

SNIP

> 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?

Trademark Control: might be a better title for that section as it is
what is being discussed.

However I also believe that was an incomplete thought I jotted down,
I meant to make this two points:

4. What would be defined as objectionable by the Licensor?

I think that this is self explanatory we need to know what would be
considered objectionable by the Licensor.

5. If Licensor determines that Licensee is using the Trademarks
improperly, and/or in connection with goods or services not covered
under this Agreement, Licensor will notify Licensee, and Licensee will
remedy the improper use within two (2) business days following receipt
of such notice from Licensor. 

What is meant by improper usage of the trademark and/or in connection with goods or services not covered
under this Agreement?  Does that mean if the Licensor does not agree
with the content of our site based on the topic heading (Content
Control) that the license could be revoked?  Or if we are not following
the trademark guidelines to the letter that the license could be
revoked?  Keep in mind this applies to many of the sites out there that
cover topics that can not be handled by the Fedora Project proper (i.e.
Third Party drivers).

Also on point 5; two business days is a pretty aggressive schedule for
hobbyist sites, I think five business days may be more amiably
accepted by the community as a whole as most of us do this in our spare
time and with real life commitments two days may become an issue
depending on the nature of the request.


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

I believe I meant verbage but the spell checker grabbed it and changed
it to something quite humorous. 

v/r

Scott Glaser