Summary of my arguments _pro_ name change

[Jocke Andersson]

It's not just an album really... it's the song too ;)
Anyway, I was mostly kidding. IF someone did mind, I guess he/she/it/they 
would have complained already... I don't think those rules/laws care much 
about capitalization...

//Firetech

On Thursday June 1 2006 23:08, Andrew Turner wrote:
> Consider me won over too. I think it just needed a bit of time for me
> to think about it, as well as Markey's rather good list.
>
> As for Oldfield waging war, I think we are safe. You can't copyright
> names, only trademark then. And as for that, I don't personally
> believe that an album name is likely to be trademarked - Oldfield's
> Amarok is hardly a brand. Even if it were trademarked, I can't see
> much potential for confusion, which I believe is one of the metrics
> for infringement. Add into that its age, and I doubt anybody would
> care anyway. I would also speculate that amaroK and Amarok would be
> considered to have rather similar levels of infringement, making this
> is a moot point with respect to the name change.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 01/06/06, Jocke Andersson <ajocke at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I finally agree with you guys about changing the name... amaroK is fun,
> > but with the growing user base, it's not very serious...
> > Amarok is more serious, but you'r sure we won't have any copyright
> > problems about it? (Thinking about the Oldfield ablum) :P
> >
> > Count me in to the pro side. Should we rename roKymotion too, while we're
> > at it? ;)
> >
> > //Firetech
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amarok mailing list
> > Amarok at kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok mailing list
> Amarok at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok