"samuncl...@gmail.com" <samuncl...@gmail.com> writes: > I'm a free software developer and I have several questions about dfsg, > trademarks and copyright.
Thank you for seriously considering the freedom of recipients of your software. > 1) If I have an free software/open source project and I register its > logo and name as a trademark. It seems legit for several reasons Yes, trademark law has a legitimate motivation: consumer protection from confusion and deceit. The problem, of how to reconcile those needs with the needs of freedom in the work, is a thorny one that continues to be explored. It is also important to remember that the permissions must also be granted automatically to every recipient of Debian, for them to exercise to the same extent. So it's not only the Debian Project's actions and freedoms you need to consider. A useful point of reference is the Debian Project's policy for the Debian trademark <URL:https://www.debian.org/trademark>, which is the product of a lot of discussion of these issues. > -> I want to promote and protect my brand. That's not something you can expect recipients of your work (such as the Debian project, or Debian recipients) to have incentive to do. It's also not, IMO, a legitimate purpose of trademark restrictions. A more legitimate purpose is what you describe next: > If someone modify the code it's fine but he or she should change the > name of the project to avoid any confusion between the original > project and fork To the extent that the restriction is in the interest of preventing confusion in the mind of the recipient, yes. But the interest of “promote and protect my brand” is not the same thing, and in some cases it can conflict with software freedom. In which case, IMO, software freedom should win such conflict. > -> can for instance debian distribute a modified version of my > software with the original name ? That's a difficult area, yes. The motivation to prevent confusion in the mind of the consumer might conflict with the freedom to redistribute the work with or without modifications. Both are legitimate motivations. For the Debian trademark, the Debian Project's solution is to define which uses of the mark are permitted and which are not. The overriding principle is that use of the trademark to imply claims that are false or misleadinf, is not permitted; other uses are permitted. > -> imagine if someone modify debian and introduce bugs and doesn't > change the name. It's your project that will have a bad reputation. This is a matter of education; you can't rely on a trademark alone to inform people what is and is not your product. The policy on the Debian trademark does not prevent any recipient from making modifications and redistributing the result with the name “Debian”. I think it's clear the Debian Project does not suffer unduly as a result. > 2) As a way to get funding and money. It's fine for you to have this motivation. But no recipient (whether the Debian Project or any recipient of Debian) can be expected to share or work toward that motivation. So, I don't think this is a legitimate justification for any restriction in the trademark license. > Their logo and name are obviously trademarked and copyrighted. Yes, a digital version of a trademark is software, and thereby is subject to copyright. The work can only be in Debian if the work has a copyright license whose conditions meed the DFSG. If the copyright license, or trademark license or any other relevant set of permissions and restrictions, does not meet the DFSG, one solution is that the trademark is removed before entering Debian. A better solution is that the conditions are improved so they do meet the DFSG. > There is no way a company will "openly" allow their logo to be > modified. In fact even debian protect its own logo. The question at issue is whether the restrictions still meet the DFSG. > 3) if a debian packager modify my software for any reason. Will they > warn me about modifications ? Will they change the name to avoid any > confusion between my original project and the "fork" made by debian ? > Will they remove sponsor logo for instance without warning us ? There's no guarantee we can give of “warning” you, whatever that might mean. Part of the requirements are that we need all permissions to act be included in the license in the work; we cannot be held back by needing to communicate with a party who might have changed their mind or be out of contact. As for modifications, we do require that distribution of modified works can be done, with unilateral permission granted by the licenses in the work. > I hope my questions aren't already answered. I hope this answers your questions, and sets out where the issues lie. -- \ “The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a | `\ question, but to post the wrong information.” —Aahz | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85oaop8w87....@benfinney.id.au
