David Goodwin of WolvesLUG, Pale Purple etc. made a blog post containing a worrying story about Moodle:
"A friend received a cease and desist letter from someone at moodle.com moaning about his use of 'Moodle Services', 'Moodle hosting', 'Moodle training', 'Moodle Consulting' and 'Moodle installation'. It appears they have a wide ranging trademark. While I understand there is a benefit to having commercial 'Moodle partners', Moodle has it's roots in the open source community - it seems rather short termed and defeating to restrict the online visibility of Moodle related resources."
I know that the idea of Moodle partners has been discussed here before, but such behaviour really does seem to restrict the ability of companies to use Moodle on their website (and hence search engines won't pick them up). Yes, I'm aware of the need to protect a Trademark to keep it valid, but still...
Tony Whitmore wrote: > David Goodwin of WolvesLUG, Pale Purple etc. made a blog post containing > a worrying story about Moodle:
> "A friend received a cease and desist letter from someone at moodle.com > moaning about his use of 'Moodle Services', 'Moodle hosting', 'Moodle > training', 'Moodle Consulting' and 'Moodle installation'. It appears > they have a wide ranging trademark. While I understand there is a > benefit to having commercial 'Moodle partners', Moodle has it's roots in > the open source community - it seems rather short termed and defeating > to restrict the online visibility of Moodle related resources."
> I know that the idea of Moodle partners has been discussed here before, > but such behaviour really does seem to restrict the ability of companies > to use Moodle on their website (and hence search engines won't pick them > up). Yes, I'm aware of the need to protect a Trademark to keep it valid, > but still...
> Tony
There's nothing stopping people using Moodle code on their websites. There's nothing to stop them making money out of Moodle. They can in fact take the whole of the Moodle code and sell this under whatever name they choose, other than "Moodle", subject to the terms of the GPL. The trademark is Moodle's way of maintaining some quality standards for those providing commercial Moodle services under that name, as well as generating some revenue stream for the core developers themselves. Most of the folk who get one of these cease and desist letters are are, I suspect, interested in using the high profile "Moodle" brand for their commercial advantage, rather than contributing to the ongoing development efforts, either directly or through financial support. Miles.
Miles Berry wrote: > Tony Whitmore wrote: >> David Goodwin of WolvesLUG, Pale Purple etc. made a blog post containing >> a worrying story about Moodle:
>> "A friend received a cease and desist letter from someone at moodle.com >> moaning about his use of 'Moodle Services', 'Moodle hosting', 'Moodle >> training', 'Moodle Consulting' and 'Moodle installation'. It appears >> they have a wide ranging trademark. While I understand there is a >> benefit to having commercial 'Moodle partners', Moodle has it's roots in >> the open source community - it seems rather short termed and defeating >> to restrict the online visibility of Moodle related resources." > There's nothing stopping people using Moodle code on their websites. > There's nothing to stop them making money out of Moodle. > They can in fact take the whole of the Moodle code and sell this under > whatever name they choose, other than "Moodle", subject to the terms of > the GPL.
Of course, but that's not what's happening here.
> Most of the folk who get one of these cease and desist letters are are, > I suspect, interested in using the high profile "Moodle" brand for their > commercial advantage, rather than contributing to the ongoing > development efforts, either directly or through financial support.
That's something of a sweeping generalisation, isn't it?
Being unable to list the software you're prepared to support on your website with coughing up a fee sounds incredibly backward to me. Personally I would resent any project that tried to take away my freedom in this way.
On 6/21/06, Tony Whitmore <schoolfo...@tonywhitmore.co.uk> wrote:
> David Goodwin of WolvesLUG, Pale Purple etc. made a blog post containing > a worrying story about Moodle:
> "A friend received a cease and desist letter from someone at moodle.com > moaning about his use of 'Moodle Services', 'Moodle hosting', 'Moodle > training', 'Moodle Consulting' and 'Moodle installation'. It appears > they have a wide ranging trademark. While I understand there is a > benefit to having commercial 'Moodle partners', Moodle has it's roots in > the open source community - it seems rather short termed and defeating > to restrict the online visibility of Moodle related resources."
The devil is in the details here. The example of Zope is useful. There is some contention and stress over who controls and exactly how you can use the "Zope" trademark, but it seems to come down to more or less not using "Zope" in the name of your business or website. But you certainly can say, "we offer Zope hosting." That seems like a reasonable approach.
If Moodle.com is literally contending that you can't say "we offer Moodle hosting and services," without paying them, that strikes me as entirely foolish and counterproductive. But I'd have to know more about the specific situation.
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 18:46 +0100, Tony Whitmore wrote:
{-snip-]
> Being unable to list the software you're prepared to support on your > website with coughing up a fee sounds incredibly backward to me. > Personally I would resent any project that tried to take away my freedom > in this way.
I agree with Tom, David Goodwin's post gave no details, and in particular none regarding any reasons given (or not) for asking his friend to stop using the name Moodle.
Also, I can't find any references on the Moodle.com website regarding fees to become a Moodle Partner. One only has to provide some evidence of competence.
John Ingleby wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 18:46 +0100, Tony Whitmore wrote: > {-snip-] >> Being unable to list the software you're prepared to support on your >> website with coughing up a fee sounds incredibly backward to me. >> Personally I would resent any project that tried to take away my freedom >> in this way. > I agree with Tom, David Goodwin's post gave no details, and in > particular none regarding any reasons given (or not) for asking his > friend to stop using the name Moodle.
I've now seen the e-mail that was sent. The "site" in question was actually just a blog posting that had the text "Moodle services" in it! The C&D letter is basically just a form letter and I half suspect it was sent by an automated system that searches pages for certain strings.
To quote the e-mail: "It’s come to our attention that your site is using our Moodle trademark without permission. "Moodle" is legally trademarked to describe Moodle commercial services, as that is something that only official Moodle Partners are permitted to do. http://moodle.com/partners/ Please remove all references to Moodle services, Moodle hosting, Moodle training, Moodle consulting, Moodle installation, and other such terms from your website immediately and let us know when it’s done."
Whilst I don't doubt that they have the legal right to do this (and am aware of similar enforcement of the Linux trademark in some countries), it still seems to reduce the Freedom of the Moodle software. Many web-based Free Software projects are offered as part of hosting packages and I'm not aware of any other project requiring registration (even for no money) in order to use the software name. Indeed, such a requirement would be against the GPL.
The other option is that people rebrand the software, as has been suggested. So then people end up using Moodle under a different name without any of the recognition going to the Moodle project and without raising the profile of Moodle.
On 6/21/06, Tony Whitmore <schoolfo...@tonywhitmore.co.uk> wrote:
> John Ingleby wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 18:46 +0100, Tony Whitmore wrote: > > {-snip-] > >> Being unable to list the software you're prepared to support on your > >> website with coughing up a fee sounds incredibly backward to me. > >> Personally I would resent any project that tried to take away my freedom > >> in this way. > > I agree with Tom, David Goodwin's post gave no details, and in > > particular none regarding any reasons given (or not) for asking his > > friend to stop using the name Moodle.
> I've now seen the e-mail that was sent. The "site" in question was > actually just a blog posting that had the text "Moodle services" in it! > The C&D letter is basically just a form letter and I half suspect it was > sent by an automated system that searches pages for certain strings.
> To quote the e-mail: > "It's come to our attention that your site is using our Moodle trademark > without permission. "Moodle" is legally trademarked to describe Moodle > commercial services, as that is something that only official Moodle > Partners are permitted to do. > http://moodle.com/partners/ > Please remove all references to Moodle services, Moodle hosting, Moodle > training, Moodle consulting, Moodle installation, and other such terms > from your website immediately and let us know when it's done."
This is even more cryptic considering that from looking at the Moodle.com website, it doesn't even seem like you have to pay to become a Moodle partner. I don't get it.
John Ingleby wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 18:46 +0100, Tony Whitmore wrote: > {-snip-]
>>Being unable to list the software you're prepared to support on your >>website with coughing up a fee sounds incredibly backward to me. >>Personally I would resent any project that tried to take away my freedom >>in this way.
> I agree with Tom, David Goodwin's post gave no details, and in > particular none regarding any reasons given (or not) for asking his > friend to stop using the name Moodle.
> Also, I can't find any references on the Moodle.com website regarding > fees to become a Moodle Partner. One only has to provide some evidence > of competence.
"Moodle Partners are a group of competent professionals who are serious about providing quality services to users of Moodle software, ranging from basic support to the development and implementation of complete ICT solutions.
Our Partnership indicates that we are dedicated to a particular vision of supporting Moodle now while developing it further with common goals. All Moodle Partners contribute directly to the ongoing development of Moodle software via funding or expertise."
> The other option is that people rebrand the software, as has been > suggested. So then people end up using Moodle under a different name > without any of the recognition going to the Moodle project and without > raising the profile of Moodle.
That would appear to increase the chances of a fork, and avoiding that is one of the prime forces at work in OSS project governance.
Steve Lee wrote: > > The other option is that people rebrand the software, as has been > > suggested. So then people end up using Moodle under a different name > > without any of the recognition going to the Moodle project and without > > raising the profile of Moodle.
> That would appear to increase the chances of a fork, and avoiding that > is one of the prime forces at work in OSS project governance.
No, please understand that this only refers to use of the trademark in describing commercial services, eg "Moodle hosting". It's a name thing. I don't like us having to send notices, but I am required to protect the trademark - it's one of the stipulations of getting a trademark in the first place and an important part of keeping it.
People are free to use and modify Moodle under the GPL, and even to construct whole business models around it if they want to, I encourage that. The Moodle software can be referred to as Moodle, no problems.
This is only about describing COMMERCIAL SERVICES, nothing more, and this is a privilege that I "sell" to Moodle Partners, if you like (they pay royalties for it, among other benefits). Do you have the rights to start a McDonalds or be a Blackboard distributor without permission? No.
Please understand that I am trying to create a viable business model for Moodle as a sustainable project here. If there is no advantage in being a Moodle Partner then no-one would want to sign up, and then Moodle would not have enough income to pay programmers to work on the features and stability and documentation and downloads and community that everyone exects.
People can whine about it but where were they for the past six years of my life while I was creating Moodle from scratch and trying to show my young family that devoting all my time to Free software was worthwhile? Imagine explaining to YOUR wife why you still can't afford even a basic house to live in while overseas companies are able to make as much money as they like from your work.
Free software still costs a lot of time and money to those who make it. I am 100% committed to Moodle as Free software and this is the best way I've found to keep me working on it.
Martin Dougiamas wrote: > This is only about describing COMMERCIAL SERVICES, nothing > more, and this is a privilege that I "sell" to Moodle Partners, if you > like (they pay royalties for it, among other benefits). [snip] > Please understand that I am trying to create a viable business > model for Moodle as a sustainable project here. [snip] > Free software still costs a lot of time and money to those who make it. > I am 100% committed to Moodle as Free software and this is the best > way I've found to keep me working on it.
Just to clarify Martin - is it OK by you for people to say "we provide support for Moodle" on a website?
I can't believe that trademark protection obliges you to stop this.
By the way, you do deserve a knighthood for the work you've done both in coding Moodle and in setting up the support and community structures that have enabled it to flourish :)
Robert Jones
On Thursday 22 June 2006 19:21, Martin Dougiamas wrote:
> Steve Lee wrote: > > > The other option is that people rebrand the software, as has been > > > suggested. So then people end up using Moodle under a different name > > > without any of the recognition going to the Moodle project and without > > > raising the profile of Moodle.
> > That would appear to increase the chances of a fork, and avoiding that > > is one of the prime forces at work in OSS project governance.
> No, please understand that this only refers to use of the > trademark in describing commercial services, eg "Moodle hosting". > It's a name thing. I don't like us having to send notices, but I am > required to protect the trademark - it's one of the stipulations of > getting a trademark in the first place and an important part of > keeping it.
> People are free to use and modify Moodle under the GPL, and even > to construct whole business models around it if they want to, > I encourage that. The Moodle software can be referred to as > Moodle, no problems.
> This is only about describing COMMERCIAL SERVICES, nothing > more, and this is a privilege that I "sell" to Moodle Partners, if you > like (they pay royalties for it, among other benefits). Do you have > the rights to start a McDonalds or be a Blackboard distributor > without permission? No.
> Please understand that I am trying to create a viable business > model for Moodle as a sustainable project here. If there is no > advantage in being a Moodle Partner then no-one would want to > sign up, and then Moodle would not have enough income to pay > programmers to work on the features and stability and documentation > and downloads and community that everyone exects.
> People can whine about it but where were they for the past six years > of my life while I was creating Moodle from scratch and trying to show > my young family that devoting all my time to Free software was > worthwhile? Imagine explaining to YOUR wife why you still can't > afford even a basic house to live in while overseas companies are > able to make as much money as they like from your work.
> Free software still costs a lot of time and money to those who make it. > I am 100% committed to Moodle as Free software and this is the best > way I've found to keep me working on it.
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Schoolforge-UK Discussions" group. To post to this group, send email to > sf-uk-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email > to sf-uk-discuss-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this > group at http://groups.google.com/group/sf-uk-discuss > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
For anybody that is unaware, I'm the person that received the 'cease and desist' request from Moodle. I would just like to clarify a few points as I understand things.
Robert Jones wrote: > Just to clarify Martin - is it OK by you for people to say "we provide support > for Moodle" on a website? > I can't believe that trademark protection obliges you to stop this.
My understanding is that the trademark does stop you from doing this and I have no objection to it. (I simply wasn't aware that the trademark even existed!).
> By the way, you do deserve a knighthood for the work you've done both in > coding Moodle and in setting up the support and community structures that > have enabled it to flourish :)
My feelings exactly. We have used Moodle at our site for the past 4 years and the growth and stability of the product is simply stunning.
> On Thursday 22 June 2006 19:21, Martin Dougiamas wrote: > > Please understand that I am trying to create a viable business > > model for Moodle as a sustainable project here. If there is no > > advantage in being a Moodle Partner then no-one would want to > > sign up, and then Moodle would not have enough income to pay > > programmers to work on the features and stability and documentation > > and downloads and community that everyone exects.
I fully agree with the business model that Martin has put in place as it will help the product to grow and continue successfully in the future. Whether or not we had become an official Moodle partner, we had always planned to give a percentage of the income back to Moodle. This is something that we already do for other projects, DansGuardian in particular.
Since the original e-mail, all communication I've had with Moodle has been both positive and constructive and we'll be applying for full Moodle Partner status in the near future. The only criticism I have is with the original contact from Moodle. The e-mail was written in typical 'cease and desist' fashion and I suspect something along the lines of 'We have noticed you are selling commercial services involving Moodle.. Was you aware that this infringes on our trademark..' and 'We provide a partner program.. would you like to join us'.. etc etc before getting down and dirty with legal notices. I suspect it would result in better public perception of Moodle and hopefully, would help foster new partners joining the organisation.
I would also like to say that the original e-mail, the name of the organisation involved and the product involved was never intended to be made public. The original e-mail was placed on my server so that I could ask for a second opinion from a number of people I know. Unfortunately the link to the e-mail was placed on a public blog. This link has now been removed at my request.
Martin - Thank you for your clarification in the earlier post, I hope this hasn't caused any negative effect on how the commercial arm of Moodle is perceived by the general public and I look forward to working with you and Moodle in the future.
I would highly recommend anyone looking for a CMS/VLE/whatever you want to call it, considers Moodle. It is an *excellent* product.
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 03:36 -0700, Omahn wrote: > Hello everyone.
> For anybody that is unaware, I'm the person that received the 'cease > and desist' request from Moodle. I would just like to clarify a few > points as I understand things.
> Robert Jones wrote: > > Just to clarify Martin - is it OK by you for people to say "we provide support > > for Moodle" on a website? > > I can't believe that trademark protection obliges you to stop this.
> My understanding is that the trademark does stop you from doing this > and I have no objection to it. (I simply wasn't aware that the > trademark even existed!).
You could of course say you can support popular open source VLE platforms, please E-mail for further details.
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 03:36 -0700, Omahn wrote: > > Hello everyone.
> > For anybody that is unaware, I'm the person that received the 'cease > > and desist' request from Moodle. I would just like to clarify a few > > points as I understand things.
> > Robert Jones wrote: > > > Just to clarify Martin - is it OK by you for people to say "we provide > > > support for Moodle" on a website? > > > I can't believe that trademark protection obliges you to stop this.
> > My understanding is that the trademark does stop you from doing this > > and I have no objection to it. (I simply wasn't aware that the > > trademark even existed!).
> You could of course say you can support popular open source VLE > platforms, please E-mail for further details.
Or how about that you support the open source VLE that rhymes with Doodle?
It seems farcical and utterly against the spirit of Open Source to be so uptight about the use of the word M**dle.
I think it fair to say we give Moodle a collective great big 'thumbs up' for being a fantastic Open Source Learning Platform, not to mention inspirational, teacher friendly and well managed.
Steve Lee
Omahn wrote: > Hello everyone.
> For anybody that is unaware, I'm the person that received the 'cease > and desist' request from Moodle. I would just like to clarify a few > points as I understand things.
> Robert Jones wrote: >> Just to clarify Martin - is it OK by you for people to say "we provide support >> for Moodle" on a website? >> I can't believe that trademark protection obliges you to stop this.
> My understanding is that the trademark does stop you from doing this > and I have no objection to it. (I simply wasn't aware that the > trademark even existed!).
>> By the way, you do deserve a knighthood for the work you've done both in >> coding Moodle and in setting up the support and community structures that >> have enabled it to flourish :)
> My feelings exactly. We have used Moodle at our site for the past 4 > years and the growth and stability of the product is simply stunning.
>> On Thursday 22 June 2006 19:21, Martin Dougiamas wrote: >>> Please understand that I am trying to create a viable business >>> model for Moodle as a sustainable project here. If there is no >>> advantage in being a Moodle Partner then no-one would want to >>> sign up, and then Moodle would not have enough income to pay >>> programmers to work on the features and stability and documentation >>> and downloads and community that everyone exects.
> I fully agree with the business model that Martin has put in place as > it will help the product to grow and continue successfully in the > future. Whether or not we had become an official Moodle partner, we had > always planned to give a percentage of the income back to Moodle. This > is something that we already do for other projects, DansGuardian in > particular.
> Since the original e-mail, all communication I've had with Moodle has > been both positive and constructive and we'll be applying for full > Moodle Partner status in the near future. The only criticism I have is > with the original contact from Moodle. The e-mail was written in > typical 'cease and desist' fashion and I suspect something along the > lines of 'We have noticed you are selling commercial services involving > Moodle.. Was you aware that this infringes on our trademark..' and 'We > provide a partner program.. would you like to join us'.. etc etc before > getting down and dirty with legal notices. I suspect it would result in > better public perception of Moodle and hopefully, would help foster new > partners joining the organisation.
> I would also like to say that the original e-mail, the name of the > organisation involved and the product involved was never intended to be > made public. The original e-mail was placed on my server so that I > could ask for a second opinion from a number of people I know. > Unfortunately the link to the e-mail was placed on a public blog. This > link has now been removed at my request.
> Martin - Thank you for your clarification in the earlier post, I hope > this hasn't caused any negative effect on how the commercial arm of > Moodle is perceived by the general public and I look forward to working > with you and Moodle in the future.
> I would highly recommend anyone looking for a CMS/VLE/whatever you want > to call it, considers Moodle. It is an *excellent* product.
I'm not so much disappointed with Moodle as I'm disappointed with how trademark law apparently works. Although I'm very confused about whether "Moodle" in this case is a product or a service.
That is, I can buy a product from a wholesaler and advertise its retail sale without obtaining the explicit permission from the manufacturer. Or perhaps I can only do that if the trademark holder implicitly allows me to? I mean, if I start a comics store, buy a bunch of comics, do I need permission from Marvel to put a sign in my window that says "We sell Marvel(TM) comics?" That doesn't seem to be the way the world actually works.
On the other hand if "Moodle hosting" is a service and all variants are service marks, I guess it makes sense that the service mark holder can restrict their use. It makes "Moodle" seem more like the name of a franchise, like McDonalds, which is the comparison Martin made. But can you use the same trademark for a product and a service? Ug. What a pain.
In this case, we all like Moodle; we all like Martin; and there is not indication that Moodle.com is asking for anything unreasonable. What is disturbing to me is that apparent the *could* act much more unreasonably if they wanted to.
That is, if I was talking to a local consultant about the advantages of offering free software hosting to schools, and he was looking for a "gotcha" in free software (which reasonable newbies assume there is), I would have to concede that yes, the trademark holder could charge an arbitrarily large fee to advertise their new services.
My concern at this point is that I don't know how I'd determine if there were some free software applications that were unencumbered by this risk. I mean, the trademark holder can say they won't charge, but I presume they legally could change their mind?
Finally, I've never heard about a trademark being applied so broadly for free software. Does anyone know of any other examples? I don't want to single out Moodle here, but I especially don't if this practice is more common than I realize.
Personally I'm not convinced that the law works that way, at least not in the UK. I.e. I can say "offer Microsoft solution consultancy services" and because I am not misleading anyone I cannot be sanctioned or prevented from selling those services, so long as I say "TM or (R) Microsoft" and don't then provide Linux solutions that I call Windows (or Lindows!). I'm not a lawyer, but I am sure that is the case.
Regardless, the trademark usage in this way does seem somewhat at odds with the philosophy of open source and *importantly* one of the advantages I have used as a proponent "anyone can support it and can carry on developing it".
Chris
On 23/06/06, Tom Hoffman <tom.hoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not so much disappointed with Moodle as I'm disappointed with how > trademark law apparently works. Although I'm very confused about > whether "Moodle" in this case is a product or a service.
> That is, I can buy a product from a wholesaler and advertise its > retail sale without obtaining the explicit permission from the > manufacturer. Or perhaps I can only do that if the trademark holder > implicitly allows me to? I mean, if I start a comics store, buy a > bunch of comics, do I need permission from Marvel to put a sign in my > window that says "We sell Marvel(TM) comics?" That doesn't seem to be > the way the world actually works.
> On the other hand if "Moodle hosting" is a service and all variants > are service marks, I guess it makes sense that the service mark holder > can restrict their use. It makes "Moodle" seem more like the name of > a franchise, like McDonalds, which is the comparison Martin made. But > can you use the same trademark for a product and a service? Ug. What > a pain.
> In this case, we all like Moodle; we all like Martin; and there is not > indication that Moodle.com is asking for anything unreasonable. What > is disturbing to me is that apparent the *could* act much more > unreasonably if they wanted to.
> That is, if I was talking to a local consultant about the advantages > of offering free software hosting to schools, and he was looking for a > "gotcha" in free software (which reasonable newbies assume there is), > I would have to concede that yes, the trademark holder could charge an > arbitrarily large fee to advertise their new services.
> My concern at this point is that I don't know how I'd determine if > there were some free software applications that were unencumbered by > this risk. I mean, the trademark holder can say they won't charge, > but I presume they legally could change their mind?
> Finally, I've never heard about a trademark being applied so broadly > for free software. Does anyone know of any other examples? I don't > want to single out Moodle here, but I especially don't if this > practice is more common than I realize.
Ouch, my head hurts. I though licensing was complex enough.
Perhaps you can find an answer on Groklaw, or Pamela Jones would be interested in researching or discussing it?
Steve
Tom Hoffman wrote: > I'm not so much disappointed with Moodle as I'm disappointed with how > trademark law apparently works. Although I'm very confused about > whether "Moodle" in this case is a product or a service.
> That is, I can buy a product from a wholesaler and advertise its > retail sale without obtaining the explicit permission from the > manufacturer. Or perhaps I can only do that if the trademark holder > implicitly allows me to? I mean, if I start a comics store, buy a > bunch of comics, do I need permission from Marvel to put a sign in my > window that says "We sell Marvel(TM) comics?" That doesn't seem to be > the way the world actually works.
> On the other hand if "Moodle hosting" is a service and all variants > are service marks, I guess it makes sense that the service mark holder > can restrict their use. It makes "Moodle" seem more like the name of > a franchise, like McDonalds, which is the comparison Martin made. But > can you use the same trademark for a product and a service? Ug. What > a pain.
> In this case, we all like Moodle; we all like Martin; and there is not > indication that Moodle.com is asking for anything unreasonable. What > is disturbing to me is that apparent the *could* act much more > unreasonably if they wanted to.
> That is, if I was talking to a local consultant about the advantages > of offering free software hosting to schools, and he was looking for a > "gotcha" in free software (which reasonable newbies assume there is), > I would have to concede that yes, the trademark holder could charge an > arbitrarily large fee to advertise their new services.
> My concern at this point is that I don't know how I'd determine if > there were some free software applications that were unencumbered by > this risk. I mean, the trademark holder can say they won't charge, > but I presume they legally could change their mind?
> Finally, I've never heard about a trademark being applied so broadly > for free software. Does anyone know of any other examples? I don't > want to single out Moodle here, but I especially don't if this > practice is more common than I realize.
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 19:32 +0100, John Ingleby wrote: > On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 19:16 +0100, Steve Lee wrote: > > Ouch, my head hurts. I though licensing was complex enough.
> > Perhaps you can find an answer on Groklaw, or Pamela Jones would be > > interested in researching or discussing it?
> Or invite Lawrence Lessig to give it to one of his students as a > project? Learning-by-doing.
On further reflection, would Martin consider a more effective way (than a "cease and desist letter") to invite companies to become Moodle Partners?
Judging by Paul Elliott's post, his company simply hadn't "Got A Round Tuit".
John ****
PS. I am *very* pleased with the way this list (which we started just over a year ago) is being used to deal with issues such as this! JI.
On 23/06/06, John Ingleby <j...@coronet.co.uk> wrote:
> On further reflection, would Martin consider a more effective way (than > a "cease and desist letter") to invite companies to become Moodle > Partners?
I've since had a chat with Martin and he's reviewing procedures after taking some feedback.
Judging by Paul Elliott's post, his company simply hadn't "Got A Round
|
