Re: The name Freetalk is already in use

Marco A. Calamari wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 13:09 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Toseland 
>>         
>>         Every reasonably interesting name is already in use. :|
>>         
>>         Suggestions for renaming Freetalk are welcome as far as I am
>>         concerned.
>> 
>> We should stick with "Freetalk" unless someone comes up with a clearly
>> better name that isn't taken.
>> 
>> The "freetalk" software you mention is not high-profile, and I think we are placing
>>  an excessive restriction on ourselves if we must find an absolutely unique name.
> 
> This appear as a licence violation; is it really necessary? 
> Freenet need absolutely a clearly already taken name? 
> In this case I suppose that someone can politely ask the previous
>  art authors ....

Names aren't generally copyrightable, and trademarks only apply to a
limited domain. Unless the existing Freetalk is anonymous forum software
(it appears to be an IM client?), I think we should be okay.

IANAL.

How about WaterBoards, since it's a bulletin board system designed to
protect against rubberhose cryptography?

_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkomutkACgkQyUdQDqgQe30qZQCgtDehJJiRXpL/ydimBfH2pLO2
hzcAn1TYfaWFMo6hOWUrcBPhRM+f/g1r
=+Yan
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----