I like Matthew Garrett and I think he does really good work, but I believe he's out in the weeds on interpreting various companies' trademark policies (while not interpreting other companies' trademark policies).
I say this as someone who has read https://www.redhat.com/en/about/trademark-guidelines-and-policies
As a professional in the "language business", I could devise interpretations of specific words in that, or almost any other policy document, that could be used to support accusations of malice or outright logical impossibility -- that's how natural language is.
No, I'm not going to demonstrate that process. It's really time consuming and unpleasant and I don't like feeling gross.
I say this as someone who has read https://www.redhat.com/en/about/trademark-guidelines-and-policies
As a professional in the "language business", I could devise interpretations of specific words in that, or almost any other policy document, that could be used to support accusations of malice or outright logical impossibility -- that's how natural language is.
No, I'm not going to demonstrate that process. It's really time consuming and unpleasant and I don't like feeling gross.
Show all 5 replies
(hopefully)
The single word describing what Matthew is doing: eisegesis.
Stephen Michael Kellat at 2015-11-20T22:15:14Z
X11R5 likes this.
Canonical should drop the policy and avoid the problems but they won't. Or clarify it. But they won't.
Jason take that garbage someplace else. Seriously. Since you completely missed the point of my post:: It's not welcome here.