- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:24:04 +0200
- To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> wrote: >Your understanding of the usage validator icons corresponds to the W3C's >Trademark and Service Mark license: >http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/trademark-license-20021231 >However, for a validator to remain meaningful, and for our registered >trademark to continue to be of value, when we are aware of those who are >violating the marks/icons we have the ability, and to some extent a >responsibility, to identify and attempt to resolve the problem. >Consequently, we should always try to be as clear as possible about the >usage of our marks/icons, and to maintain the tools available to us so >as to ensure they continue to be useful mechanisms for encouraging >conformance to W3C Recommendations. Sure, I was just worried that it is counterproductive to argue the case with them if they, as they appear to, do not want to understand the issue. It would be different if the badges actually signified a certification from the W3C -- in which case the W3C would _have_ to follow up on the matter -- but as it stands continuing to press for a change may only result in a balcanization. But then I've only seen the parts of the conversation that were CCed here so I'm probably completely off here. :-) - -- > ...publicity rights, moral rights, and rights against unfair competition... Well, you've got me there. I have no idea what any of those have to do with SGML. Next you'll be claiming that running NSGMLS constitutes an unauthorized public performance of SGML. -- Richard Tobin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.0.2 iQA/AwUBPwpHY6PyPrIkdfXsEQIq7QCgyJ/bKrT7Ex/Yt0wYI10LSsYqv9UAoMsX Zs3mBJl9Y7XwkRWgKEWn6P0D =9qia -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2003 00:24:18 UTC