Does anyone else find it ironic that Creative Commons remixed our logo for the remix icon?
But in all seriousness... this might be a trademark issue; the question is, do or should we, as a progressive group working in "intellectual property" reform, care? It's obviously important for marks to retain their meaning, but it's not clear how much we really own this one: it is a vectorized form of a photo of some signature bricks, that while they can't be copyrighted, they aren't necessarily our original work in and of themselves. So, while I am frustrated that they didn't ask us -- and am worried people might be confused when they see the icon; I think this might pose as much of a problem for CC as it does for us: they run the risk of being associated with us where they'd prefer to remain independant. That said, I have absolutely no problem about inquiring about this within CC and actually feel it should be the first thing we do before getting bent out of shape over it. F On 2/26/07, Benj. Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<quote who="Chris Morris" date="Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:42:12PM -0500"> > Well 3.0 still has 4(a) section for that requires you to remove authorship. > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode > So I bet it is still DFSG non-free. Actually, that seems pretty unlikely. The part that you describe was (IIRC) primarily problematic in that it both required authorship requirements *and* let authors forbid it. In effect, you could use the combination of these two to bar any derivatives. If I recall correctly, this was fully addressed in the text of the 3.0 licenses so Debian no longer has an issue with this. The only thing that the Debian/CC working-group did not get complete consensus on was the issue of parallel distribution. I wrote this position statement on that issue but it did not win out in the 3.0 licenses discussion period (so please do not follow-up to the cc-licenses mailing list at this point): http://wiki.mako.cc/ParallelDistribution While I think this the lack of PD clauses is not ideal, I'm pretty sure that it is not a DFSG-freedom issue. The GFDL has a even stronger anti-DRM clause that does not allow for parallel distribution and Debian has explicitly decided that the GFDL (minus certain toggable "invariant" sections) is a free license. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --RMS _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-- The content of this email message is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License, Some Rights Reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
