fremantle afaik is not (C) or [TM]
Claiming that a device is XY[tm]-compatible is not violating any rule I know of.
The logos etc on casing, yep, we will remove them.

We don't need ANY closed driver blobs! For sure not to boot debian. Not even to boot fremantle. I'm not going to employ or involve any lawyers in that stage of the project - had my share of experience with anything where lawyers got involved (HiFo anybody?)
All the points listed are no argument against FPTF, they are clearly related to Neo900 and GolDeliCo. The FPTF is NOT DOING ANYTHING SUSPICIOUS.
Ivgalvez is threatening everybody contributing to FPTF with "problems of C&D and prosecution". I think that's mainly FUD and I guarantee that helping with development of compatibility layers, FOSS replacements, even analysis of API/ABI and function of closed blobs, porting fremantle (FOSS!) kernel to a new hw platform - is all perfectly legal and none of all that will cause any negative effects for any of you.

I nevertheless am all positive for moving this sub-topic incl all related posts to a new thread, since this thread is about technical aspects and clearly marked "developers only"

thanks,
jOERG

PS: we're talking about 200 units here - if we're lucky to get there. I can't see any company on this planet considering to give their lawyers a call to even figure if they could do anything about this. It doesn't pay off for them. Odds are we cease and desist long before their lawyers are ready with drafting the letter.