Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Raul Miller wrote: >>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>> >>>>But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in >>>>roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless. >> >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >> >>>That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the >>>drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that >>>interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that >>>identifies a project. "GCC", "grub", "Linux", and "Apache" are all >>>names. A logo is not a name. >> >> You're changing the subject from what Brian was talking about: the set of >> "trademarks" has only a small area of overlap with the set of "logos". >> Sure, there are logos which don't identify anything, but those logos >> aren't trademarks. > > And in this case, the subject is a logo which is in the intersection of > the set of "logos" and the set of "trademarks". > > "trademark" does not inherently imply "name" in the DFSG4 sense, > although most trademarks are of names; neither does "logo". A name is a > name, not a logo, not a sound file, not a video clip, and not any other > similar work.
A name does have an image and a sound, though. Its image might move. If I say "this doesn't pass the tex regression tests, so I can't call it TeX. I will call is Samuel, which is pronounced "Tech"" then I haven't really changed the name. > The sum total of what DFSG4 should permit a license to > require is a change in the top-level non-functional string identifier > for a work; Absolutely not. Requiring that derivatives of firefox stop using both the name 'firefox' and the image of a flaming fox is perfectly reasonable and free. > I would be hesitant to say that it can even require a global > s/NAME/SOMETHINGELSE/, especially if that name is ever used in > functional manner, such as libNAME.so.42 or NAME_functionname. Sure, of course functional components aren't names, or aren't purely names and so you can't freely require they be changed. > If we are going to permit arbitrary pieces of a work (including both > functional and non-functional components), such as imagery, to be > construed as a "name", then we have a serious Freeness problem. Nobody suggested functional components but you. I've only been talking about those parts of the work which name it. > * Use as the basis of any logo, for any organization. Yes, that's intentional. It's Debian's logo. > * Use on the cover of a book. Fine if it's a book about Debian, otherwise we don't want it to happen because it weakens our trademark rights. > * Use on a website (even of a competing distribution). As above. > * Use as the basis for hiding a steganographic message. Irrelevant -- it can be used, only if the overt message is a reference to Debian. > * Use for Debian-derived distributions (though it would not give them > the right to claim endorsement or affiliation, nor would any of the > other cases). Fine, if used as a reference to their Debian-derivedness. > * Many other uses, few of which fall in the category of "referring to > Debian", and none of which fall into the category of "fraud". > * Use as the basis for any other image, which can then be used for all > the same purposes. I'd love to see your proposed license which allows practical use on the cover of a book or on the pages of a competing distribution. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
