3 ms·

> You're going to need to explain that more clearly. I think you are intelligent enough to understand it on your own. BTW, I know asking question is good, but

> You're going to need to explain that more clearly. I think you are intelligent enough to understand it on your own. BTW, I know asking question is good, but sometimes try to answer other people's questions, it's good too! > When there's no other public evidence available, what do you want me to do? So we can safely assume he did not do anything you say, he's innocent until proven guilty, like any of us, right? > It really wasn't. It really was. I'm with Joshua Gay (former employee of the FSF Licensing & Compliance Team) on this: It is not clear to me that there is any contradiction between the SFLC statement and the FSF’s statement on the matter of Linux and ZFS. That is, I can’t really find how the SFLC and FSF differ in their interpretation GPLv2 and CDDL. The complete comment can be found here https://blog.halon.org.uk/2017/11/software-freedom-law-center-and-conservancy/#comment-16322 https://blog.halon.org.uk/2017/11/software-freedom-law-cente... >> Is this enough to fire people? > Evidently That's why it is bad, if it wasn't evident. FSF should not act as evil corporations do.

mjg59 7y ago
> I think you are intelligent enough to understand it on your own. I wouldn't be asking if I could. How does "Software Freedom Conservancy" damage the "Software Freedom Law Center" trademark? > So we can safely assume he did not do anything you say, he's innocent until proven guilty, like any of us, right? Given the lack of independent corroboration, it's certainly reasonable for you to assume that I'm mistaken or lying.
- pedanticlawyer 7y ago
  > I wouldn't be asking if I could. How does "Software Freedom Conservancy" damage the "Software Freedom Law Center" trademark? Considering the latter founded the former, I think you should ask them. The timeline is the following - 17-September-2005 – US Trademark First Use Date: SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY (by the SFLC itself) - 3-April-2006 – SFLC Announces incorporation of Software Freedom Conservancy as an independent non-profit, with Eben Moglen, Karen Sandler, and Daniel Ravicher as Directors Anyway, their reasons are in the petition for the cancellation of "Software Freedom Conservancy" that can be found here http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92066968&pty=CAN&eno=1 http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92066968&pty=CAN&eno=... The trademark of "Software freedom" is never mentioned, but only "GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION" (all uppercase as in the original document)

mjg59 7y ago

> I think you are intelligent enough to understand it on your own. I wouldn't be asking if I could. How does "Software Freedom Conservancy" damage the "Software Freedom Law Center" trademark? > So we can safely assume he did not do anything you say, he's innocent until proven guilty, like any of us, right? Given the lack of independent corroboration, it's certainly reasonable for you to assume that I'm mistaken or lying.

pedanticlawyer 7y ago
> I wouldn't be asking if I could. How does "Software Freedom Conservancy" damage the "Software Freedom Law Center" trademark? Considering the latter founded the former, I think you should ask them. The timeline is the following - 17-September-2005 – US Trademark First Use Date: SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY (by the SFLC itself) - 3-April-2006 – SFLC Announces incorporation of Software Freedom Conservancy as an independent non-profit, with Eben Moglen, Karen Sandler, and Daniel Ravicher as Directors Anyway, their reasons are in the petition for the cancellation of "Software Freedom Conservancy" that can be found here http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92066968&pty=CAN&eno=1 http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92066968&pty=CAN&eno=... The trademark of "Software freedom" is never mentioned, but only "GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION" (all uppercase as in the original document)