MJ Ray a écrit :
So I don't think Kohala could own the TM, no.
Surely it *could* own it, but we might disagree on whether it's a better holder than BibLibre or not?
Technically speaking it could, yes, it could. But it would be much much worst than BibLibre trademark ! (and <paranoid mode ON> much easier to harm everybody than BibLibre trademark !<paranoid mode OFF>) So it's definetly BibLibre that is the best holder atm ! 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. Cheers, Brooke