incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <>
Subject Re: [RESULT][IP Clearance] Flex Documentation for Apache Flex
Date Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:21:11 GMT

On 4/27/15, 7:01 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <> wrote:

>On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
><> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>><> wrote:
>>> ...So, if I look on the page `flx_olapdatagrid_ol.html`, I see the
>>>following text
>>> in the middle...
>>>     The product field can have the values: ColdFusion, Flex,
>>>     Dreamweaver, and Illustrator
>>> ... and then the following text at the bottom:
>>>     Adobe and Adobe Flash are either registered trademarks or
>>>trademarks of
>>>     Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other
>>>countries and
>>>     are used by permission from Adobe.  No other license to the Adobe
>>>     trademarks are granted....
>> It looks to me that in this example Flex just needs to add ColdFusion
>> and Dreamweaver after "Adobe Flash" in that latter paragraph, to
>> properly acknowledge those trademarks. I don't see how someone would
>> need permission to make that change, as it states a true fact which is
>> missing from the above text.
>It's a true fact that they are trademarks of Adobe; what is less clear
>to the incomplete whitelists and the non-standard, extra-strict
>clause is whether we have permission to use them.

Update:  I have committed the files and fixed as many trademark lists as
Justin and I could find quickly.

IMO, the sentence starting with “No other license..” is being
mis-interpreted.  I have to ask the Adobe legal folks about a different
issue today so I will use that opportunity to ask for clarification on
this sentence.

IANAL, but just for the fun of speculating, I would guess that, given the
prior sentence mentions a list of Adobe trademarks, that the trademarks
referenced in the second sentence is that same list.  And the reason for
the non-standard second sentence is because it isn’t standard for Adobe
trademarks to be mixed into content with an open license, especially a
license associated with an entity to which Adobe has already donated one
of its trademarks, and with even more complexity, has a license to
continue to use the donated trademark on its existing products.  I’m not
sure how lawyers interpret words, but for me, the bigger context often
helps prevent taking individual phrases out of context.

But I’ve been surprised many times before, so I’m not wagering anything on
my guess.  I’ll post another update when I hear back.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
View raw message