Anthony Towns <[email protected]> wrote: > The DFSG refers to copyright licensing, it doesn't cover patents or > trademarks.
I think the above is mistaken and I'd find it shocking if any DD who passed NM made it. It is easily shown not to be the case by checking http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines for copy or copyright or similar terms. We should not care if somewhere calls the restrictive law Betty and it only applies to authors called Frank. If it limits certain freedoms and we don't have a licence that follows the guidelines, that's a bug. > The difference between trademarks and copyright, is that > copyright covers all copies and derivatives, while trademarks cover > anything that's confusingly similar. So if you independently create a > logo that looks confusingly similar, you need a trademark license but > not a copyright license; while if you create a derived works that's not > similar at all, you need a copyright license, but not a trademark license. [...] I agree that trademarks and copyright have differences and so we can look for different ways to meet the guidelines, but we should still apply the guidelines. There's also DFSG 4, which can be argued to allow many trademark-related restrictions, as long as we can get free from them simply. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
