:)
+> +> They provide a license to use the logo for a $1.00 per year fee. They
+> +> say they require a license fee to "secure a valid legal agreement".
+> +>
+>
+> Interesting. Who said, they may claim anything about a "legal agreement" ?
+>
+> I think there's some kind of law that legal contracts aren't valid
+> unless both parties receive something of value. In this case,
+> presumably they've trademarked that logo, and in order to maintain a
+> trademark they have to control its use. The $1 payment ensures that
+> the license is considered valid
Humm. You got me wrong. I meant: "Who gave them the right to create such a logo?"
In my opinoin, they may create a Logo: "Linux Jounal approved: It runs with Linux 1.2.13"
for example. This would be OK. Who is the ultimate Authouritative Institution
which can decide "It runs with Linux" except for all Linux-Users ? :)
+>
+> (Note that I'm not a lawyer. They don't seem to like it when those of
+> us who aren't don't make that clear :-) Then again, those of us who
+> aren't really don't want to be confused for one :-)) )
+>
+> --
+> Robert Krawitz <rlk@tiac.net> http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/
+>
+> Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net
+> Tall Clubs International -- tci-request@aptinc.com or 1-800-521-2512
Regards,
Herbert
__________________________________________________________________________
Herbert Wengatz,82049 Pullach |Disclaim: This Mail is my own opinion,
Office :hwe@uebemc.siemens.de |not that of my company. ***
Private:hwe@rtfact.muc.de | oo-)
http://www.muc.de/~hwe/rtfact (new & improved !!!!!!) m_/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Support Randal L. Schwartz! For details email to:fund@stonehenge.com <<