From: Edward H Trager (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 29 2003 - 11:41:31 EDT
> On Thu, 29 May 2003, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Rick McGowan wrote:
> > 2. It is unikely that the Unicode *logo* itself (i.e. the thing at
> > http://www.unicode.org/webscripts/logo60s2.gif) will be incorporated
> > directly in any image that people are allowed to put on their
> > websites, because to put the Unicode logo on a product or whatever
> > requires a license agreement. I.e. the submissions from E. Trager
> > are out of scope because they contain the Unicode logo on the
> > left side.
> As this comes from an Unicode official, I guess we should simply accept
> it... Nevertheless, I wonder whether displaying the Unicode *logo* per se
> has the same legal implication as displaying a *banner* which contains the
> Unicode logo.
> IMVHO, that seems like the difference between producing a T-shirt with the
> Unicode logo and wearing it. In the first case, I must demonstrate that I
> asked and obtained the permission from the trade-mark owner; in the second
> case, I don't have to demonstrate anything (apart, maybe, that I did not
> steal that piece of garment).
Exactly. I would sincerely hope that the Unicode Consortium would not
take an officious or legalistic attitude about it.
If one displays a "Best Viewed In Netscape" or "Best Viewed In Internet
Explorer" logo on a web page, he or she is effectively promoting that
product and providing free advertising for the respective browser vendor.
Certainly neither Netscape nor Microsoft is going to object to the
incorporation of their official, potentially trademarked logo, just
because that someone did not get an official license or permission to
display their logo.
Of course, it would be a better world if that someone instead chose to
display logos on their web site promoting open standards like W3C and ISO
10646 (Unicode) ... so that eventually all content is "Best Viewed In Any
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 29 2003 - 12:33:17 EDT