From: Adam <rotator_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 21:11:28 -0500

Exactly, they are not claiming any sort of trademark infringment, only
copyright. There is absolutely no need to bring trademarks into this.

From Christopher Wood's earlier post it's clear that the only thing
they could claim copyright infringment on would be "sufficient amount
of literary or pictorial expression", neither of which apply to the
Jewels plugin. There's no "literary" part of the plugin to speak of
and the graphics are all under GPL license from the game Gweled.

(Testing 1 2 3, are my emails are finally making it through to the
mailing list?)


On 4/15/06, Ray Lambert <listlizard_at_interthingy.net> wrote:
> In adversarial situations such as this, it is usually best to give as
> little information as possible. You never know when your adversary can
> find a way to turn something around and use it against you. For
> example, your statement below can be viewed as an admission that you/we
> *were* violating their trademark, something that they can throw back in
> your/our face. Besides, saying that we take copyright and trademark
> seriously is a completely meaningless statement in a legal context.
> IMO, Björn handled it perfectly. If they want to make a serious claim
> they need to make a specific case for it (legally). Besides, they would
> have their lawyer sending the C&D if they were really serious.
>
> ~ray
>
>
> Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> > you should have also mentioned that it was once named bejewelled and
> > changed very recenlty to jewled because u take copyright and trademark
> > and stuff seriously..
>
>
>
>
Received on 2006-04-16