|
|
 | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| (...) OK, lets not make a mountain out of a molehill here. LEGO very clearly and often stated in that letter that they encourage the creation and use of our third party OS's and such. What they (rightly) wish to protect is the dillution of their (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
| | | | | Re: LEGO Company position on third-party programs for LEGO MINDSTORMS
|
| (...) [snipped Clarification from the LEGO(R) MINDSTORMStm team] Thanks for the clarification, Tomas. (...) I'd also suggest visiting legos.sourceforge.net, and sending the letter to the maintainers of that site (if you haven't already), as although (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| FYI, there is now a posting in lugnet.lego.announce that should help to clarify this issue: (URL) set to FUT lugnet.lego.direct because of some rules (that I still don't quite get) about where official messages can be posted and followed-up to, but (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| Ok, I agree with the *possibility* of the name being a problem, but I am more concerned about the hacks themselves being contested instead. However, LegOS is NOT for commercial purposes, so that should be a factor to consider here. I wouldn't be AS (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
| | | | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| (...) In the US, at least, a trademark *must* be defended, or the company loses it. If legOS does, in fact, infringe on their trademark, they would have had to defend it pretty quickly or that usage would pass into the public domain. Or something (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
|
