On Thu, 08 Feb 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: > The DFSG refers to copyright licensing, it doesn't cover patents or > trademarks.
It actually doesn't refer to any of them specifically. It does talk about licensing, but it doesn't clarify whether it's refering to copyright licensing or trademark licensing. > Having a restrictive trademark license prevents people from using > confusingly similar logos, while a DFSG-free copyright license allows > people to make derivatives as long as they're not confusingly similar. Right, but DFSG ยง3 doesn't qualify the types of derivative works that must be allowed. [Though I admit there are limitations to it that (lots of us may agree) exist even though they are not stated.] In any event, this entire line of argument isn't particularly important, so long as no one puts the official logo into main or contrib. [MFT set to -legal as it's probably more on topic there if someone wants to discuss it.] Bravo though, for actually moving on this. It's nice not to have to be rediculously hypocritical when talking about licenses on distributed logos with upstreams. Don Armstrong -- Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. -- Oscar Wilde http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
