Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 03:08:28 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: Gary Kendall <gdk@ccomp.inode.COM>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mv /usr/src/games /dev/null - any objections? Message-ID: <8685.878641708@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Nov 1997 02:40:27 PST." <199711041040.CAA17501@hokkshideh.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It's not a question of what you like,
>
> Of course. You asked for objections, and how -dare- I suggest a
> preference? What -was- I thinking? After all, I'm just a user.
You are quoting this out of context. As I said, "It's not a question
of what you like, it's a question of how to distribute this stuff .."
This had nothing to do with your statement of preference and any
objections I may have had to it, I was simply saying that you were
arguing at cross purposes to the current direction of this thread,
that being how we might package all of games in order to avoid this
problem in the future. You think we like dealing with this twice in 6
months? You don't think it might be prudent, given the low
benefit-to-risk ratio of /usr/src/games, to take steps to simply avoid
a repetition of this problem in a known trouble spot? No consumer
product manufacturer is going to sue over "ls" since it has no place
in their context, but call it games/ls or movies/the_story_of_ls.mov
and Hasbro is most definitely going to come after you if they have a
game called "ls - fun for the whole family" or if Lewdie Productions
has just done a movie called "The story of ls" [XXX] about lesbian
strippers or something. It's all a question of being able to
reasonably demonstrate a trademark conflict, both of the above
situations clearly falling into said category.
> > No, they are simply the ones who sue. I think you've had too little
> > experience with the sharp end of our wonderful legal system to
> > really comment knowledgeably on this whole topic, so why don't we
> > just agree to disagree here?
>
> So let me get this straight. You -presume- I've had too little
> experience, so because of this you are going to define me as not being
> able to provide a requested opinion?
Again, let me clarify: You and several others in this discussion
haven't really been providing "the requested opinion" so much as
you've been taking the opportunity to give me a fair bit questionable
legal advice ("just fuck the lawyers, man!") which I have been
reacting to with semi-vitriolic paragraphs like the above rather than
being able to spend the time more constructively discussing the real
issue here, which is how to deal with this situation now and in the
conceivable future, not just for "boggle" today. Perhaps I should
have chosen a different subject, considering what the post which
accompanied it segued into.
Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8685.878641708>