Re: GPL versions mismatch.
In message heciro$o0...@ger.gmane.org, Raúl Sánchez Siles rasas...@gmail.com writes Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message he7933$tg...@ger.gmane.org, Raúl Sánchez Siles rasas...@gmail.com writes From what you've said, I think the way forward is apparent. As you surmise, accepting GPL v3 contributions isn't possible with the current project status saying the project licence is v2. Actually, I think you COULD accept v3 contributions, but to do so you'd need to change the project licence to v3. ...Or to v2+, if I understood correctly. No. In that case you're granting permissions that the author didn't grant. Think about it ... You're given a load of code that is licenced v3+ plus OpenSSL exemption. You then put it into a v2+ project ... BIG NO NO. You've just gone and told all your recipients they can distribute as per GPL v2 - something the v3 author did NOT give you permission to do! This brings me a question: if the code is already GPLv2+, who is to take the decision of stating that the whole project is GPLv2+?. If each contributor agreed that the code is already GPLv2+, why shouldn't the project already be considered GPLv2+? No reason why not. BUT there is a further copyright to be considered - the compilation copyright. I'm not sure whether that's its official name, but think of a book of verse. The poets own the individual copyrights to the poems, the publisher owns the copyright to the book. The compilation copyright in this project is, therefore, owned by the project maintainer. Within the constraint that it must be a subset of the licences on the code, he can choose whatever licence he thinks fit, and he has said the compilation is v2. If he wishes to change it to v2+ he can, because that is still a subset of the licences on the code. And any recipients can pull code out of the project (including pulling ALL the code :-) and distribute that under v2+, too. So it would make sense for the project maintainer to change the project licence to v2+. (Or v2/v3 if he's a bit wary of +, like Linus.) You said that your authors at the moment are a bit chary about moving to v3, but you think it's a good idea. What's actually probably a good idea then is to say that All new contributions must be v2+ or v2/v3, in preparation for a move to v3. (Or BSD, or some other GPL-compatible (both versions) licence.) I think I got this: there can't be any GPLv3 code in the project if the project license is either GPLv2 or GPLv2+, right? Correct. Because the v2 licence on the project grants rights that the authors did NOT grant on the code. v2 is NOT a subset of v3. If I'm right, this means, that no GPLv3 code will ever be able to be used, and this includes link, unless the license is moved to GPLv3, is this right again? Correct. Because v2 is NOT a subset of v3. In this case, what happens to those embedded or linked code which is GPLv1+, for instace? No problem. Because v2 (and v3) ARE proper subsets of v1+ (note the PLUS in there :-) That doesn't alter the project's current v2 status. It DOES stop a developer throwing a spanner in the works by contributing some new v2-only code which will prevent you from relicensing. And it makes clear to developers where you are planning to go. Ok, now it's turn to convince them about the move. Cheers, Wol Thanks again for the supporting effort. -- Raúl Sánchez Siles -Proud Debian user- Linux registered user #416098 -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Skype/Facebook trademark logos in Debian packages
Eion Robb wrote: I believe repacking upstream tarball to exclude logos is the way to go. You'll also want to remove the MSN/AIM/etc logos from Pidgin/Empathy/etc too, since they obviously fall into the same legal grey area. Unless they're considered fair use then everything should be good to go. I agree. What about MSN butterfly [1], ICQ flower [2], etc ? ICQ, THE FLOWER LOGO, THE ICQ NETWORK and/or other ICQ products referenced herein are trademarks and/or servicemarks of ICQ. Other products and companies' names or marks may be the trademarks or servicemarks of their respective owners. No license is granted to you in this Agreement, either expressly or implicitly, to use any trademark, servicemark, names, or logos of ICQ, including ICQ and the flower logo. What's the difference among all these logos? Gabriele [1] http://advertising.microsoft.com/europe/WWDocs/User/Europe/PressCentre/Licensee_use_of_the_MSN_logos.doc [2] http://www.icq.com/legal/end-user-license.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Skype/Facebook trademark logos in Debian packages
Gabriele Giacone losga...@libero.it writes: Eion Robb wrote: You'll also want to remove the MSN/AIM/etc logos from Pidgin/Empathy/etc too, since they obviously fall into the same legal grey area. Unless they're considered fair use then everything should be good to go. There's no “fair use” in trademark law AFAIK. But the rights reserved to trademark holders are somewhat limited. I agree. What about MSN butterfly [1], ICQ flower [2], etc ? ICQ, THE FLOWER LOGO, THE ICQ NETWORK and/or other ICQ products referenced herein are trademarks and/or servicemarks of ICQ. […] No license is granted to you in this Agreement, either expressly or implicitly, to use any trademark, servicemark, names, or logos of ICQ, including ICQ and the flower logo. The question is, does one *need* the trademark holder's permission to use the trademark in this way? I thought using a trademark specifically to *refer to* the product was clearly allowed under trademark law in most jurisdictions. Would someone explain why that's not so? -- \ “I like to skate on the other side of the ice.” —Steven Wright | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Skype/Facebook trademark logos in Debian packages
There's no “fair use” in trademark law AFAIK. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trademark+law+fair+usel=1 :)
Re: Skype/Facebook trademark logos in Debian packages
Eion Robb e...@robbmob.com writes: There's no “fair use” in trademark law AFAIK. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trademark+law+fair+usel=1 (Leads to URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)) Okay, so it seems (according to Wikipedia) that the USA does recognise a “trademark fair use”, which *does* allow referring to the product (using the mark “nominatively”): In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called trademark fair use to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. […] A nonowner may also use a trademark nominatively—to refer to the actual trademarked product or its source. […] This does, to my mind, permit using the mark to say “this product supports that other product and/or service”, and doesn't need the trademark holder's permission. Whether other jurisdictions have a similar allowance, I don't know. -- \“Holy knit one purl two, Batman!” —Robin | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
