Re: Proposed licensing change for OpenLDAP 2.0/-devel

[Julio Sánchez Fernández <j_sanchez@stl.es>]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:

> The terms include "some protections":

That's correct and that is what I meant.  I just wanted you to notice
that adding TM to OpenLDAP grants no protection in this side of the
world.  Only registering the trademark here (or in the European PTO)
would do.

On the other hand, a derivative that insists in being called OpenLDAP
is in copyright infringement.  Here and in any country signatory to
the Berne Convention (remember the particulars on how the anonymous
remailing service at penet.fi died).  Because under Berne, everything
is no permission by default.  No one can make a derivative work without
making use of the freedoms granted by the license and then they become
bound by it.  And there is no need to actively defend the trademark,
original works don't go public domain by negligence as can happen with
trademarks.

Of course, all of this is civil law and we all know what it means.

Julio