Subject Trademarks
Author David Trudgett
At 2001-04-18 01:27 +1000, Helen Borrie wrote:

>Look, regardless of the theories flying about in the bpi newsgroups or
>individuals' tendency to trust or distrust the weather in Scotts Valley,
>the constraints on brand-name usage are pronounced in the IPL. We don't
>need an interpreter. The amendments at the bottom of the IPL say we are
>not allowed to use the name "InterBase" or "Interbase" as a brandname or
>as part of a brandname, or to use the name to endorse or promote.
>It is preposterous to suggest that implies we can't explain that Firebird
>was built from the opened source code of InterBase. long as you don't try to _promote_ Firebird by explaining the
connection! Sorry, I just like to be the devil's advocate :-). Ann is
probably right about the apathy bit, but if it were me, I wouldn't bank on it.

Let's get into niggly detail. Let's suppose that we prominently mention in
a Red Hat RPM package description (not the _name_ of the product, mind you)
that the work is "based on open source InterBase, a Borland product". This
is certainly not (a) using "InterBase" as a brand name for the product; nor
(b) failing to recognise Borland as the creators of InterBase; but, it
could conceivably (not preposterously) be construed as (c) using the
InterBase brand to promote Firebird.

Yes, I know, that's stupid, stupid, stupid, but I don't count on any lawyer
being either bright or benign.

>That's a statement of irrefutable fact, not an endorsement or a
>promotion. It goes for us or for anyone else who distributes a built version.

The best way to endorse or promote a product is with irrefutable fact, is
it not??

>Why, for a consideration, we might even agree to let them promote
>InterBase with "upgradable to Firebird(R)" among its features. :)

Precisely. <;->

David Trudgett