abiword: Debian appears to be violating AbiWord's license

[Debian Bug Importer]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #258918 http://bugs.debian.org/258918

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 02:23:52 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: abiword: Debian appears to be violating AbiWord's license

--v7CWsE/Dy737oYst
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Package: abiword
Version: 2.0.7+cvs.2004.05.05-1
Severity: serious

Please see the following mailing list discussion.

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 04:14:03PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Dagfinn Ilmari Manns=E5ker wrote:
> > Josh Triplett <email address hidden> writes:
> >=20
> >>For example, "Abiword" is a trademarked name; Abisource requires that
> >>modified versions of Abiword are either called "Abiword Personal", or
> >>that they don't have "Abiword" in the name. This is a perfectly
> >>reasonable application of a trademark to Free Software, and Debian
> >>distributes of Abiword using the branding "Abiword Personal".
> >=20
> > Not as far as I can se:
> >=20
> > Description: WYSIWYG word processor based on GTK2/GNOME2
> > AbiWord is the first application of a complete, open source office
> > suite. The upstream source includes cross-platform support for
> > Win32, BeOS, and QNX as well as GTK+ on Unix.
> > .
> > This package contains the AbiWord binary built with GTK2/GNOME2.
> >=20
> > Neither the GNOME menu entry, the splash screen, the window title nor
> > the about box mention "Personal" in any way.
> >=20
> >>From what I see at
> > <http://www.abisource.com/information/license/personal.phtml> the source
> > they distribute should automatically brand itself "AbiWord Personal",
> > but the source only mentions "Personal build" (or anything resembling)
> > in the Windows .nsi installer files.
>=20
> Interesting. I was almost certain that at one point Abiword was branded
> "Abiword Personal" in Debian, and used the blue ant graphics rather than
> the official graphics. However, checking again, I see that this is not
> the case in either the stable or unstable versions. This is definitely
> a violation of the Abiword license, and should be submitted as a serious
> bugreport on the abiword package.

Filed.

--=20
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti
<email address hidden> | impune non paretur.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

--v7CWsE/Dy737oYst
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkDyPIgACgkQ6kxmHytGonwibwCfcC+PN745/A6+bosNWIHTYCni
H08An1Ro7ITpNnj48DkZKfnT2rFYLqO/
=0CLn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--v7CWsE/Dy737oYst--

[Matt Zimmerman (mdz)]

Increase severity of RC bugs to major, now that we have other, non-RC bugs in
the list

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:35:48 +0100
From: Daniel Glassey <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>
Cc: Dom Lachowicz <email address hidden>
Subject: Fwd: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Dom Lachowicz
> Date: 20 July 2004 22:08:34 BST
> To: Andy Korvemaker, <email address hidden>
> Subject: Re: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?
>
>
> I'm not sure if this is the reason or not, but please
> see:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=258918
>
> For the record, I've recently acquired the AbiWord
> trademarks and whatnot. I haven't had a chance to
> update the TM information on the website.
>
> To be expressly clear here for any Debian guys that
> read this message:
>
> Within reason, I don't care if you use "AbiWord" vs.
> "AbiWord Personal." In fact, I'd prefer it if you used
> "AbiWord."
>
> Within reason, I don't care if you use the "official"
> artwork or the "personal" artwork. In fact, I'd prefer
> it if you used the "official" artwork.
>
> I do begin to care if you use my trademarks to promote
> other products, or in ways that disparage my
> trademarks or products. If you "forked" AbiWord, you
> couldn't use the trademarks. But you're clearly not
> going to do that. The USPTO has more info and case law
> on this sort of thing.
>
> Debian and the other distros are clearly distributing
> AbiWord, and providing a beneficial service to the
> community. Even though Debian's version might have a
> few patches against our "mainline" branch, I don't
> believe it constitutes a "fork." As such, I think that
> it is fine (if not preferable) for you guys to use the
> official name and artwork in your distribution.
>
> So, you have my blessing to call your AbiWord +
> patches "AbiWord". You can use the official artwork
> too.
>
> Dom
>
> --- Andy Korvemaker wrote:
>>
>> I was checking whether a new version of Abiword was
>> available in
>> Unstable and decided to see what was holding the
>> current Unstable
>> version from moving into Testing (at
>> http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/abiword.html).
>>
>> Clicking on the "Check why" link for why it's not
>> there, it looks like
>> Abiword is scheduled for removal from Sid. See
>>
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=abiword
>>
>> I'm not a Debian developer at all, so I'm not sure
>> if this is a "common"
>> occurence. But as a (relatively inexperienced) user
>> it sounds like
>> Abiword is being pulled for some reason. (I don't
>> know how to find out
>> what that reason is.)
>>
>> andy
>> --
>> Andy Korvemaker
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
>

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:58:52 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: Daniel Glassey <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>,
 Dom Lachowicz <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?

--xesSdrSSBC0PokLI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[answerinng only the off-topic parts, for clarification from the release
team:]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Daniel Glassey wrote:

>--- Andy Korvemaker wrote:

> >>I was checking whether a new version of Abiword was
> >>available in
> >>Unstable and decided to see what was holding the
> >>current Unstable
> >>version from moving into Testing (at
> >>http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/abiword.html).
> >>
> >>Clicking on the "Check why" link for why it's not
> >>there, it looks like
> >>Abiword is scheduled for removal from Sid. See

> >http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=3Dabiword

> >>I'm not a Debian developer at all, so I'm not sure
> >>if this is a "common"
> >>occurence. But as a (relatively inexperienced) user
> >>it sounds like
> >>Abiword is being pulled for some reason. (I don't
> >>know how to find out
> >>what that reason is.)

You can find this information at
<http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints>. The reason for the
removal request was not 258918, which is far too recent to have shown up
on the release team's radar yet as a removal issue, but 241279,
affecting a library that abiword depends on. An alternative resolution
for 241279 has since been found that doesn't involve ripping out abiword
and half the GNOME metapackages depending on it, so abiword is no longer
in danger of removal.

Please feel free to forward this information to Andy, as I don't appear
to have his email address.

--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--xesSdrSSBC0PokLI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA/ZWUKN6ufymYLloRAo4FAJ9MYEoHFduGxGh+u36CuKns99f9cgCgiTJE
MophVoTq4zJOq5409XBDC5M=
=Y/n3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xesSdrSSBC0PokLI--

[Matt Zimmerman (mdz)]

<sabdfl> mdz: so a I understand it the upstream author says "go ahead". fine by me.

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:40:11 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: Dom Lachowicz <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>,
 Daniel Glassey <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?

--mrJd9p1Ce66CJMxE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Daniel Glassey wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>=20
> >From: Dom Lachowicz
> >Date: 20 July 2004 22:08:34 BST
> >To: Andy Korvemaker, <email address hidden>
> >Subject: Re: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?
[...]
> >For the record, I've recently acquired the AbiWord trademarks and
> >whatnot. I haven't had a chance to update the TM information on the
> >website.

Hello,

Thank you very much for shedding some light on this issue!

I have some questions below.

> >To be expressly clear here for any Debian guys that read this message:
> >
> >Within reason, I don't care if you use "AbiWord" vs. "AbiWord
> >Personal." In fact, I'd prefer it if you used "AbiWord."
> >
> >Within reason, I don't care if you use the "official" artwork or the
> >"personal" artwork. In fact, I'd prefer it if you used the "official"
> >artwork.
> >
> >I do begin to care if you use my trademarks to promote other products,
> >or in ways that disparage my trademarks or products. If you "forked"
> >AbiWord, you couldn't use the trademarks. But you're clearly not going
> >to do that. The USPTO has more info and case law on this sort of thing.
> >
> >Debian and the other distros are clearly distributing AbiWord, and
> >providing a beneficial service to the community. Even though Debian's
> >version might have a few patches against our "mainline" branch, I don't
> >believe it constitutes a "fork." As such, I think that it is fine (if
> >not preferable) for you guys to use the official name and artwork in
> >your distribution.
> >
> >So, you have my blessing to call your AbiWord + patches "AbiWord". You
> >can use the official artwork too.

One of Debian's "freeness" criteria is that licenses not be specific to
us[1]. The Open Source Initiaive has a similar criterion, which says that
licenses must not be specific to a "product". To be precise:

  8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

  The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being
  part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted
  from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the
  program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed
  should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with
  the original software distribution.[1]

Debian wants our users to enjoy the same freedoms we do, and we consider
our users to be -- potentially, anyway -- the "general public".

Are you willing to extend this trademark license to the general public? I
am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I *suspect* you can do so
without encouraging dilution.

If I may, let me rephrase your statement above ...

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <20040725182259.GC18136@pegasos>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:22:59 +0200
From: Sven Luther <email address hidden>
To: Dom Lachowicz <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>, Daniel Glassey <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:40:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:35:48PM +0100, Daniel Glassey wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > >From: Dom Lachowicz
> > >Date: 20 July 2004 22:08:34 BST
> > >To: Andy Korvemaker, <email address hidden>
> > >Subject: Re: Abiword being removed from Debian/unstable?
> [...]
> > >For the record, I've recently acquired the AbiWord trademarks and
> > >whatnot. I haven't had a chance to update the TM information on the
> > >website.
>
> Hello,
>
> Thank you very much for shedding some light on this issue!
>
> I have some questions below.
>
> > >To be expressly clear here for any Debian guys that read this message:
> > >
> > >Within reason, I don't care if you use "AbiWord" vs. "AbiWord
> > >Personal." In fact, I'd prefer it if you used "AbiWord."
> > >
> > >Within reason, I don't care if you use the "official" artwork or the
> > >"personal" artwork. In fact, I'd prefer it if you used the "official"
> > >artwork.
> > >
> > >I do begin to care if you use my trademarks to promote other products,
> > >or in ways that disparage my trademarks or products. If you "forked"
> > >AbiWord, you couldn't use the trademarks. But you're clearly not going
> > >to do that. The USPTO has more info and case law on this sort of thing.
> > >
> > >Debian and the other distros are clearly distributing AbiWord, and
> > >providing a beneficial service to the community. Even though Debian's
> > >version might have a few patches against our "mainline" branch, I don't
> > >believe it constitutes a "fork." As such, I think that it is fine (if
> > >not preferable) for you guys to use the official name and artwork in
> > >your distribution.
> > >
> > >So, you have my blessing to call your AbiWord + patches "AbiWord". You
> > >can use the official artwork too.
>
> One of Debian's "freeness" criteria is that licenses not be specific to
> us[1]. The Open Source Initiaive has a similar criterion, which says that
> licenses must not be specific to a "product". To be precise:
>
> 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
>
> The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being
> part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted
> from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the
> program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed
> should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with
> the original software distribution.[1]
>
> Debian wants our users to enjoy the same freedoms we do, and we consider
> our users to be -- potentially, anyway -- the "general public".

Huh, i am bluffed here. Not sure i understand the whole issue, but i think we
consider licences of the type :

  you may use, modify, distribute, whatever this software as you wish, as long
  as you don't...

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:09:28 -0700
From: Joshua Kwan <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: severity of 258918 is normal

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.7.95.1
 # The main issue has been resolved
severity 258918 normal

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:11:04 +0900
From: Masayuki Hatta <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>

severity 258918 minor
thanks

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:12:41 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: AbiWord, trademarks, and DFSG-freeness

--YC8Ek3FeOE8ywfXk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi folks,

At Josh Kwan's request, I hopped into the IRC channel used by AbiWord
developers and had a brief chat with them about our concerns over trademark
licensing.

Let me try to summarize their position as I understand it:

A) The existing trademark restrictions documented in
   /usr/share/doc/abiword/copyright are out of date, as is
   <URL: http://www.abisource.com/tm_guide.phtml >. Unfortunately, there
   appears to be nothing available that supersedes these documents.
B) As far as I can tell, they feel that the trademark usage guidelines Dom
   Lachowicz communicated to Debian[1] should suffice for our needs.
C) They feel that because trademark rights are automatic and implicit
   (though you are in a better position to sue people if you claim your
   marks with a "(TM)", and better still if you register them with the
   United States Patent and Trademark Office, earning the right to put (R)
   next to your mark), that there is nothing unique about their situation,
   and Debian needs to solve "the trademark problem" for everything we
   distribute before singling them out for special attention.
D) They don't want to say anything more on the matter until and unless we
   can come back with some real lawyers.
E) At least some of them appear to feel that we don't understand the
   distinction between copyrights and trademarks.

It may be the case that the AbiWord developers interpret documents like the
DFSG[3] and OSD[4] as applying only to copyright licenses. I am
speculating, but it would explain some of the strenuousness of their
protestations.

It is my opinion -- and to my knowledge the general consensus of those
familiar with such documents -- that the DFSG and OSD (and the Free
Software Foundation's "four freedoms" for software[5]) are completely
neutral as to the legal mechanisms that are employed (even if by default)
to prohibit the exercise of users' prerogatives to use, copy, modify, and
distribute software.

Before proceeding, permit me to make the following observations:

There is a kind of "fair use" that applies to trademarks, just as there is
to copyrights. Just because "IBM" is a trademark doesn't mean the IBM
Corporation has complete and arbitrary control over *all* appearances of
this word[6]. As far as I know, trademark holders cannot prohibit people
=66rom using the mark to make factual assertions, write product reviews,
report on SEC filings, rant in newsgroups, and so forth.

It is my (weak) understanding that trademarks are mostly designed to
prohibit confusion in the marketplace, by providing legal remedies against
people who "pass off" a product as being something it is not, or
originating from some place that it does not. In the U.S., the Lanham
Act[7] is the most often cited provision of federal law dealing with
trademarks in c...

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:22:55 +0100
From: Andrew Suffield <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: AbiWord, trademarks, and DFSG-freeness

--XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:12:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Therefore, I think the biggest question for us is:
>=20
> 1) Do the default protections that attach to trademarks, even when
> unregistered and unmentioned (not even with a "(TM)"), infringe upon t=
he
> freedoms the DFSG purports to defend?

I suspect that strictly as stated, no. Trademark dilution will stop
this for most works - anything which has been repeatedly branched in
the past, for example. You would have real trouble defending a
trademark on 'glibc', 'gcc', or 'emacs' at this point.

However, there almost certainly exist scenarios in which trademarks
can be an issue.

> In lieu of pursuing all of the above questions exhaustively, I propose the
> following:
>=20
> P1) Adopt a kind of don't-ask, don't-tell policy regarding implicit
> trademarks. Many free software developers don't give a whit about
> trademarks, and some don't even care how much their software is patch=
ed
> by third parties while retaining the name. So, if you maintain a
> package that doesn't assert any trademarks, don't worry about it.

For the above reasons I'm inclined to agree that this is safe.

> P2) If a package does assert a trademark, contact the mark holder and ask
> for a trademark license that permits usage of the marks under the same
> terms as the copyright license that has been attached to the
> corresponding work, wherever applicable.

As with abiword, the main thrust here is:

"Can I call a modified version foo, even when you don't like the
modified version?"

So that makes a good opener for people with no comprehension of
trademarks; it'll rapidly categorise them into people who are and are
not willing to grant a free license.

(Answer appears to be 'no' for abiword; DFSG aside, we can't really
afford to distribute it with trademarks intact)

--=20
  .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `' |
   `- -><- |

--XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBb6T/lpK98RSteX8RAmV/AKCBpraSMV5CPupYOfh4uVlhrI1pcgCfZ8Ei
Wyte07IoykqIQeFifOIbo2s=
=8Vep
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l--

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:50:29 +0200
From: Jacobo Tarrio <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: AbiWord, trademarks, and DFSG-freeness

O Venres, 15 de Outubro de 2004 =E1s 02:12:41 -0500, Branden Robinson esc=
rib=EDa:

 First of all, I Am Not A Lawyer, so don't sue me if your trial goes bad.
It's all your fault for believing me :-)

 And now...

 I think that trademarks are irrelevant to DFSG-freeness since if the
copyright license is DFSG-free, we would still be able to distribute the
software even if we were asked by the trademark owner not to use its
upstream name (we'd have to change the name. It would be a hassle, but th=
e
software would still be DFSG-free).

 IOW, nowhere in the DFSG says something like "you cannot restrict the
user's right to have their modified copies of the software called in the
same way as the original". In fact, there's one place (DFSG #4) where it
says just the opposite :-)

 So take the following only FYI, since I think you'd like to know about i=
t.
Or if there's interest in ever writing a trademark license for the Debian
logos, which allow the maximum admissible freedoms :-)

 First, useful URLs:

 http://www.oepm.es/internet/legisla/signos/iii21lmar.htm

 This is the URL to the Spanish trade mark law. It's in Spanish but it's
there for the record :-)

 http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/main/1989/en_1989L0104_index.htm=
l

 This is the EU trade mark directive. All EU member states' trade mark la=
ws
have to comply with this.

 http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/main/1994/en_1994R0040_index.htm=
l

 This is the Council Regulation on the Community trade mark. That is,
EU-level trade marks. Its wording is similar to the Spanish law...

> 1) Do the default protections that attach to trademarks, even when
> unregistered and unmentioned (not even with a "(TM)"), infringe upon=
 the
> freedoms the DFSG purports to defend?

 In Spain, trademark owners have no rights until they register them, or
unless the trademark is "notoriously known" in Spain.

 After registering a trademark, its owner has the right to prohibit its u=
se,
but these prohibitions are not enabled by default (it's the owner who has=
 to
actively enforce the prohibitions).

 So there are no default protections in Spanish trademark law. I think it=
 is
the same for "Community trademarks", that is, EU-level trademarks.

> 3) I don't know if the AbiWord developers are right about meaningful,
> strong, legal protections applying to potential trademarks if no not=
ice
> of trademark status is made. After all, common dictionary words are
> frequently trademarked.

 In Spain, notice does not affect (in principle) the outcome of a tradema=
rk
suit. Only a cease&desist order, which would earn the trade mark holder
damages in some cases.

> P1) Adopt a kind of don't-ask, don't-tell policy regarding implicit
> trademarks. Many free software developers don't give a whit about
> trademarks, and some don't even care how much their software is pat=
ched
> by third parties while retaining the name. So, if you maintain a
> ...

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:11:12 +0200
From: Jacobo Tarrio <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: AbiWord, trademarks, and DFSG-freeness

O Venres, 15 de Outubro de 2004 =E1s 17:50:29 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escrib=
=EDa:

> I think that trademarks are irrelevant to DFSG-freeness since if the

 Oops, I have just thought of a case where it isn't so, at least in Spain=
.
The Spanish trade mark law allows the owner of a trademark to prohibit it=
s
removal from a product.

 I don't know what I would think of a piece of software with a name that
couldn't be changed. It would make forking impossible... so now I know.
Non-free.

 But it wouldn't be the case more often. More trade mark holders are more
eager to have you NOT use their mark than the inverse ;-)

 Some hypothetical Debian Free Trade Mark Guidelines (DFTMG) would have t=
his
item: "the trade mark license must allow removing the mark from the work"=

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:40:23 -0400
From: Raul Miller <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: AbiWord, trademarks, and DFSG-freeness

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 06:11:12PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> Oops, I have just thought of a case where it isn't so, at least in Spain.
> The Spanish trade mark law allows the owner of a trademark to prohibit its
> removal from a product.

If we are prohibited from removing the name abiword from some derivative
form of the program, then we must be allowed to have abiword on that
derivative form.

Alternatively, once we're not allowed to have abiword on the derivative
form, we can't be prohibited from removing the name.

--
Raul

P.S. you have permission to quote in other forums anything I've written
and sent to debian-private in the last year.

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:41:45 +0200
From: Bill Allombert <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: AbiWord, trademarks, and DFSG-freeness

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:12:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Let me try to summarize their position as I understand it:
>
> A) The existing trademark restrictions documented in
> /usr/share/doc/abiword/copyright are out of date, as is
> <URL: http://www.abisource.com/tm_guide.phtml >. Unfortunately, there
> appears to be nothing available that supersedes these documents.
> B) As far as I can tell, they feel that the trademark usage guidelines Dom
> Lachowicz communicated to Debian[1] should suffice for our needs.
> C) They feel that because trademark rights are automatic and implicit
> (though you are in a better position to sue people if you claim your
> marks with a "(TM)", and better still if you register them with the
> United States Patent and Trademark Office, earning the right to put (R)
> next to your mark), that there is nothing unique about their situation,
> and Debian needs to solve "the trademark problem" for everything we
> distribute before singling them out for special attention.
> D) They don't want to say anything more on the matter until and unless we
> can come back with some real lawyers.
> E) At least some of them appear to feel that we don't understand the
> distinction between copyrights and trademarks.

I would like to discuss whether Debian can legally ship abiword:

1) abiword/copyright read
  " Source code created by AbiSource is
  copyrighted by AbiSource, Inc., and is distributed under the terms of
  the GNU General Public License. "

and latter:

   "The GPL does not grant you any right to use AbiSource trademarks in
  connection with these derivative works. AbiSource trademarks may not
  be used in connection with any such derivative works unless that usage
  is explicitly and specifically licensed, in writing, from Dom
  Lachowicz."

This imply that a restriction on modifications is imposed upon us.

2) GPL section 7. par. 1) say:

    7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
  infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
  conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
  otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
  excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
  distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
  License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
  may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
  license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
  all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
  the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
  refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

It is my understanding that 'for any other reason' include restriction
imposed by trademark holders as well.

In light of GPL 6.

    6. Each time you redistribute the...

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:29:29 -0400
From: Brian Thomas Sniffen <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: AbiWord, trademarks, and DFSG-freeness

I think you're mistaken in calling the trademark issue a restriction
on modification. It is a restriction on the manner of distribution of
certain modifications. I can make whatever changes I like, but I may
not distribute them under the mark "Abiword."

Your substantive argument, however, is persuasive. Debian should
distribute its modified work derived from Abiword as, perhaps,
Debiword. It's OK to still have references to Abiword in it, and even
to prominently mark that it's derived from Abiword -- anything which
reduces confusion and avoids charges that Debian's changing names to
accrue glory to itself, as was the case with Red Hat a year or two ago.

-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen <email address hidden>