
Gobuntu has already failed - nickb
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/10/18/gobuntu-has-already-failed
======
mechanical_fish
This article reminds me of a quote from a Bruce Sterling lecture:
[http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/events/events_detail...](http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/events/events_detail/1943/)

"Hackers _love_ IP. I mean, Eben Moglen, I saw this guy. He says, you know,
we're not going to be able to convince the ruling class to change things the
way we GNU freaks like it, so let's just make it _really complicated_! Just go
in there and _hack the living daylights_ out of intellectual property! Just
_quibble, quibble, quibble_! Raise hell! NIMBYize all the time! Until people
just become _critically bored_ with it, and they just throw up their hands,
because _I just can't be bothered_. I can't keep track of all my licenses, and
my this, and my that, and the other, and it's just completely unmanageable."

------
derefr
If I release an open-source project with a logo of a little horse, and don't
trademark the horse, then someone else can use that horse, completely
separately from my project, to represent another project that has nothing to
do with mine, and thus dilute my project's brand. Is there any way to reduce
the impact of this _without_ closing the source to the artwork?

~~~
Benja
To clarify: (1) Your scenario = don't trademark, use open source license. (2)
What Mozilla does = trademark, use proprietary license. (3) What Mark thinks
should be done (afaiu) = trademark, use open source license.

I don't know a good way to reduce the impact in scenario (1) through legal
means, but if you are worried about this, why not choose scenario (3)?

