<HTML>
<BODY>
MJ Ray a écrit :<br>
>> So I don't think Kohala could own the TM, no.<br>
>> <br>
> Surely it *could* own it, but we might disagree on whether it's a<br>
> better holder than BibLibre or not?<br>
> <br>
Technically speaking it could, yes, it could.<br>
But it would be much much worst than BibLibre trademark ! (and <paranoid <br>
mode ON> much easier to harm everybody than BibLibre trademark <br>
!<paranoid mode OFF>) So it's definetly BibLibre that is the best holder <br>
atm !<br>
<br>
<br>
With all due respect, I think we might have fallen into some binary thinking here. I think there might be two fallacies at play here. 1) That unless trademarked, the Koha name would be in danger. I think that this whole trademark situation might have been avoided entirely by specifically rolling the name and icon in the GPL. 2) That the only good steward is a corporation. At any point, did anyone consider having a Library serve as steward? It seems to me that a Library would have a good interest in ensuring that access to the name were wide and not anticompetitive. I am very uneasy with a single set of hands, even Paul's, holding these when they have a direct financial interest in *not* distributing rights.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Brooke
</BODY></HTML>