From: DrC <drc...@nt...> - 2009-01-21 18:10:45
|
> .....My interpretation of that is..... We must clearly acknowledge and protect their right to their trade marks. "Boeing" is the registered trade mark of...... Beyond that, in the only case of another company's IP that I have had to deal with, having had a 'sort of' go-ahead I sent them back a draft of the copy I proposed to use, 'hoping that they would be comfortable with' its use in that context. They asked for a further small change, which I incorporated. I sent a courtesy copy of the published item - no come back. On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 07:42 -0600, Jon S. Berndt wrote: > > Ah sorry, that slipped my attention, you are right. > > I'll ask Jon about it. > > > > Erik > > We should discuss this, then, because the impacts may be more far reaching. > I asked the Boeing licensing people some time ago about our flight models. > They were OK with us creating models, but were not OK with the models being > sold as a "Boeing" model. My interpretation of that is that the flight > models cannot be advertised as "Boeing" models in any way that might > indicate Boeing endorses it or is involved, and the name Boeing is also > trademarked, I believe. > > Now, there is probably some wiggle room there, since the GPL allows a > variety of things and interpretations vary. I would think that as long as > the models are not themselves marketed as Boeing endorsed products - and no > indication or misleading labeling is used to indicate that they are Boeing > endorsed - then we're probably OK. That may involve changing the name to > B314 instead of Boeing314, or something similar. It also may involve > requiring that anyone who is selling FlightGear for profit (with value added > material, for instance) not include the Boeing314, Boeing 737, 747, etc. > Another solution is to keep such aircraft as the Lockheed f-16, f-22, etc. > Boeing aircraft, Airbus aircraft, etc. all on a separate server with special > license statements. > > I'm not trying to be difficult. But, I've done the work, contacted the > manufacturer, asked permission, and gotten an answer. This likely applies to > more than the Boeing 314. Before making rash and sweeping statements, this > needs to be given some careful thought. A disclaimer is the least that > should be included in each and every aircraft file, IMHO. > > This action is meant to protect people and companies both. There have been > inquiries by companies and some actions taken in the not too distant past > that has lead me to be much more careful. > > You should be too. Discussion welcomed. > > Jon > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > SourcForge Community > SourceForge wants to tell your story. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel |