-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I don't think there is any serious chance that someone will see the icon CC used and mistake it for FreeCulture.org's endorsement or anything like that.
For the record, our logo is not Legos (TM), it's legos. I'll argue they've been genericized enough. In fact, I'll even write a pamphlet and go xerox it. If you don't like it, throw it in the dumpster. Gavin Fred Benenson wrote: > 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 >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF47SXtLXQdLhFpekRAg5CAJ9RwbsjyqxhLd8nTVRHRs5k9DYn0wCePe/n DzqmN8Lo9Eu9P/z2wEjDPnE= =NhlS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
