It'd be great if Theo could make a clear statement on Puffy, the same
as  Marshall Kirk McKusick has for the daemon.  I had cause to use a
variant of Marshall's beastie for a project which was marginally
within his published guidelines, and had no problem getting
permission.


On 3/16/07, Karel Kulhavy <clock@twibright.com> wrote:
quoted text
> Is it true that Puffy is not here because of Theo's concerns about
> his copyrighted Puffy logo?
> http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/NoBlob-en-Poster.jpg

Not only is puffy not there, the word "OpenBSD" is also absent, and
Theo has explained exactly what happened.  It's not about the blowfish
at all.


quoted text
> I also couldn't use Puffy logo on Ronja because then I wouldn't be able to talk
> about OpenBSD negatively if it came out there is some serious problem with
> Ronja and OpenBSD together.
>
> I think Theo should stop being paranoid about his Puffy. Puffy is not something
> you steal from a bowl and it disappears. I also have a Ronja logo which is
> under GFDL and noone is stealing it and damaging me. The same for the Linux Tux
> I have the feeling.

Not quite how trademark law works, see http://preview.tinyurl.com/2crjgc

Specifically, it appears you could legally use Puffy on a Ronja logo
"to indicate compatibility", and you could still feel free to "talk
about OpenBSD negatively", even under Canadian trademark law.

In the "No blob" case, the issue would be that using *any* OpenBSD
mark would "suggest sponsorship or endorsement", puffy or no puffy.
And Theo has made it clear how he feels about endorsing that specific
campaign.


Jack J. Woehr writes:
quoted text
>  Handling the deadly pufferfish is very dangerous, and best left to experts!

The only legal imports to the US are pre-processed and flash frozen,
with all tetrodotoxin safely removed.

Fugu is good food.


IANAL, YMMV