Karl Fogel schrieb:
> As Subversion grows more and more popular, the likelihood of people
> using its name and logo in confusing ways (even accidentally) grows
> too. There have already been a few instances of this happening,
> though so far all easily correctable. But an ounce of prevention is
> worth a pound of cure, so we've written a draft trademark policy:
>
> http://subversion.org/legal/trademark-policy.html
>
> ...and we welcome comments. It's as brief as we can make it; we're
> trying to keep the policy simple and comprehensible.
Not sure if this is the correct way to comment but there is no note
where to send comments to so I just replied to the lists. (Maybe put a
note where to comment in the draft text)
I have a slight irritation when reading 3c) I understand that you are
not allowed to refer to a fork or somesort of extension (like for e.g.
SVK) as a successor of subversion but the example you are giving
confuses me. The example does not designate a successor but simply
states the fact that the software is kind of like a Subversion 2.0. This
does not mean that it claims to be the designated successor. It might be
better to leaf off the example in order not to confuse anybody or state
a different example.
Regards
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 31 09:39:45 2007