Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Including that notice in the package long description would certainly cover the packages.debian.org and downloading via aptitude/synaptic. But I don't think out ftp architecture is set up such as to allow us to include a README file in the same directory. My guess is that including the statement in the package's long description is would be considered by RedHat as sufficient, but we should really get clarification. I'd be amazed if this approach was a problem, but I agree a clarification is worthwhile. Presumably the notice could also be included in the copyright file? Yes, I would say the notice should be in the copyright file, especially to point out the fact that it should not be removed from the long description. IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:40:43PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote: John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the recipient receives a usable copy. Paragraph 3 may be the first problem. It basically prevents cheap CD vendors from selling copies of Debian on an as is basis. I'm not sure this is a real concern. are they really selling the media as-is? So If the cd comes scratched so bad it does not work, or is warped, the buyer has no recourse? I can see no warrenty on data being useable for anything, but I'm not aware of anybody who sells Disc's who does not have at least a limited warrenty covering manufactiong defects on the media. (As opposed to data defects) I agree this is probably more of a theoretical concern than an actual problem. Anyone who refused to replaced defective CDs would go out of business very quickly! Including that notice in the package long description would certainly cover the packages.debian.org and downloading via aptitude/synaptic. But I don't think out ftp architecture is set up such as to allow us to include a README file in the same directory. My guess is that including the statement in the package's long description is would be considered by RedHat as sufficient, but we should really get clarification. I'd be amazed if this approach was a problem, but I agree a clarification is worthwhile. Presumably the notice could also be included in the copyright file? The distribution media thing is likely something the ftpmasters would need to decide. It not really so much a freeness problem, as potential practical problem should an organization unwilling to place a limited warrenty on the physical media exist and desire to destribute Debian. The notice requirement can be solved, if Red Hat agrees that including the notice in the package's long description is sufficient. (Which I expect they will, but we really need offical clarification on.) I agree. So overall it sounds like this will be OK, subject to that point about the distribution media and the clarification from Red Hat. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the recipient receives a usable copy. Paragraph 3 may be the first problem. It basically prevents cheap CD vendors from selling copies of Debian on an as is basis. Note that, in many jurisdictions, this is actually a legal requirement. For example, this clause would be meaningless in the UK because the vendor would be liable under SOGA (Sale Of Goods Act) anyway. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the recipient receives a usable copy. Paragraph 3 may be the first problem. It basically prevents cheap CD vendors from selling copies of Debian on an as is basis. I'm not sure this is a real concern. are they really selling the media as-is? So If the cd comes scratched so bad it does not work, or is warped, the buyer has no recourse? I can see no warrenty on data being useable for anything, but I'm not aware of anybody who sells Disc's who does not have at least a limited warrenty covering manufactiong defects on the media. (As opposed to data defects) [Snip, following quote is in regard to the FTP part of the license] If Red Hat consider a README in the same download directory to be good enough then that should be fine, however. Presumably it would be fine in general. However, it may be a problem for Debian, as I'm not sure our arcitecture is properly set up for this. Including that notice in the package long description would certainly cover the packages.debian.org and downloading via aptitude/synaptic. But I don't think out ftp architecture is set up such as to allow us to include a README file in the same directory. My guess is that including the statement in the package's long description is would be considered by RedHat as sufficient, but we should really get clarification. Modified Mugshot Client Code – Limited Trademark Permission Red Hat and the Mugshot Project support the extension of Mugshot™ to new platforms and languages. Red Hat grants a limited permission to use the Mugshot™ mark on these modified versions of the Mugshot™ client code Note that is only covers extending Mugshot to other platforms and languages, not distributing modified versions for the same platform or language. But packaging it for Debian probably counts as extension ... to a new platform, especially given the stated purpose of this limited permission being to make Mugshot as widely available as possible (while preserving Red Hat's trade mark rights). Indeed. I would consider Debian a seperate platform, in so far as it has a seperate package managment system. Clarification by RedHat on this point would be nice, but I'm fairly convinced this is not a problem. provided the following conditions are met: 1. You identify your version of the client code as an adapted version of Mugshot™ in the “About” dialog associated with the Mugshot icon. The attribution statement should be similar to: “Mugshot™ client code adapted for .” I'm guessing that's OK. I agree. There is no special freeness problem here because we (or the end user) could always change the program name if they wanted to remove that message. 2. You do not prefix the named product with Red Hat (e.g. Red Hat Mugshot is not allowed.). That's fine too. Agreed. No problem there. After all Debian's Red Hat Mugshot package would sound really weird. :-D. 3. The changes you make do not alter the fundamental user experience from that provided by Mugshot™ as made available by Red Hat. That is, you can: 1. localize the client code; 2. provide patches or bug fixes to the client code; 3. provide extensions or plug-ins to the client code; or 4. adapt the client code to run on another platform; but 5. you cannot substantively modify or remove basic components of the client code such that the user experience is altered. 4. You do not redirect the client code to operate with a server other than the server found at mugshot.org Again, that's probably OK too. From a free software POV, it's always open to people to do any of the unpermitted acts under a different name. Yeah. That sounds fine, and sounds like it includes all we really would need to make a Debian package using the Mugshot name. It is very important that any modified version of Mugshot™ meet (or exceed) the quality level people have come to associate with Mugshot™. Red Hat reserves the right to require persons to cease use of the Mugshot™ mark if they are redistributing software with low quality and efforts to remedy the situation have not succeeded. This is probably a key point in practice. It would be worth getting Red Hat to confirm that they are happy with the Debian package. IIRC the issue over Firefox/Iceweasel arose (at least in part) because Mozilla were unhappy with some of the changes being made in order to Debianize the software (e.g. disabling the built-in update system). That was a small part. They had a policy of not letting patched versions be called Firefox, unless the patches were approved. That is fair enough, and I suspect that most changes
Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:18:54PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: Note that, in many jurisdictions, this is actually a legal requirement. For example, this clause would be meaningless in the UK because the vendor would be liable under SOGA (Sale Of Goods Act) anyway. ...unless it was a business to business sale (as opposed to selling to a consumer). But I agree that the number of cases in which people are refusing to warrant the *installation media* (as opposed to the software) are likely to be pretty low in practice, even if the extent of the warranty is just We'll replace any dodgy discs. (Though that in turn makes me wonder why Red Hat bother to insist on the point.) The issue is that it is placing a direct requirement on those vendors, regardless of what the local law might say, for the sake of one package out of c.20,000. John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines
Hello debian-legal. Mugshot is an open project to create a live social experience around entertainment, and the mugshot-client integrates this into the linux-desktop. See http://mugshot.org for more info on this. The client is released under the terms of GPLv2, but Mugshot™ is also a trademark of Red Hat, Inc and may only be used in accordance with some trademark guidelines found at http://mugshot.org/trademark I've been maintaining the mugshot-client outside of the Debian-archives for 1,5 years now, due to some concerns with the Mugshot Trademark Guidelines at first. I vented these to the developers and Red Hat a while back, and at least my concerns have been solved now, as these guidelines are much clearer on redistribution of the client (see the part Modified Mugshot Client Code – Limited Trademark Permission) Therefore (upon several requests from users of my package) I now wish to upload the client to the main-section of the archive. However, I would really like some more (critical) eyes to take a look at the Trademark Guidelines before uploading, and someone to confirm or disapprove of my conclusion. The full text of http://mugshot.org/trademark as it is displayed on 2007-12-04 is attached below. The conditions as they are set at the moment are all met in my package. I'd like some feedback on this from you, and unless there is some strong disagreement on how Debian will be in compliance with this I will hopefully get to upload the package this coming weekend. Cheers :) Heikki --- Trademark Guidelines Mugshot™ Trademark Guidelines RED HAT, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THESE GUIDELINES AT ANY TIME. YOU SHOULD PERIODICALLY CHECK THESE GUIDELINES TO BE SURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE. Basic Introduction Red Hat, Inc. has a long and distinguished history of being an active contributor to the open source software community. One of the key features of open source software is that anyone has the right to copy, modify and redistribute the software, subject to the terms and conditions of certain license agreements or copyright permissions, such as the GNU General Public License. It is important to understand that, although Red Hat allows third parties to replicate its open source software under the GNU GPL, absent a written agreement or other express permission it does not allow third parties to use its trademarks. For example, absent a trademark license from Red Hat, a party would have the right to copy, modify and sell Red Hat's open source software, but they would have to call it by another name. Red Hat has always been fully supportive of open source rights with regard to copyrights and demonstrates that support by releasing the software we develop under open source licenses. This document is designed to provide guidance on how the software developed and marketed under the Mugshot™ trademark may be marketed by others, using Red Hat's Mugshot™ mark. A Brief Introduction To Copyright And Trademark Law As They Relate To Software The guidelines in this document are based on United States law. Although many countries follow the same principles discussed below, the laws of other countries may also differ on some points. Copyright Copyright law protects the expression of an idea. Mugshot™ consists of open source software modules, most developed by Red Hat but some developed by other members of the open source community. Those authors (or their employers) hold the copyrights in the modules or code they developed. Through Red Hat the Mugshot Project then permits others to copy, modify and redistribute the work under the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 and the Mugshot Project's own End User License Agreement. Although software licensed under the GPL is open source software, Red Hat retains ownership of the copyright in the work and only Red Hat can grant rights to use the Mugshot™ mark.. Neither the GPL nor the Mugshot Project's End User License Agreement grant any right to use Red Hat's trademarks in the redistribution of the collective work. Basic Introduction Trademarks are used to identify the source of goods and services in the market. Trademark law is best understood as consumer protection law, since it enables consumers of products to know the source of the products they purchase and allows them to distinguish those products from the products of other vendors. This is important in order to ensure that consumers are not fooled into purchasing a product of one company while believing it is a product of another company. For instance, Heinz® ketchup is a well-known brand of ketchup. If Jones Company decided to make its own ketchup, and was able to market it as Heinz® ketchup, Jones Company would profit in the sale of its ketchup from the customer goodwill established by the owner of the well-known Heinz® brand. Although that might be good for Jones Company, it could be bad for the consumers who purchased
Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:04:59PM +0100, Heikki Henriksen wrote: However, I would really like some more (critical) eyes to take a look at the Trademark Guidelines before uploading, and someone to confirm or disapprove of my conclusion. Trademark Guidelines [Lots of interesting but irrelevant background information about the nature of trade marks omitted. ;) ] Mugshot™ Trademark Guidelines [...] Any party wishing to use the Mugshot™ mark may do so as long as they meet these conditions: 1. They may use the Mugshot™ mark in association with the original Mugshot™ code found on the Mugshot Project website (see http://mugshot.org) without modification; or 2. They may use the Mugshot™ mark in association with a modified version of the original Mugshot™ client code provided they abide by the conditions set forth below; and 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the recipient receives a usable copy. Paragraph 3 may be the first problem. It basically prevents cheap CD vendors from selling copies of Debian on an as is basis. Except as expressly stated herein, no other rights are granted to use any other Red Hat trademarks, specifically including the RED HAT® and Shadowman logo® marks. Absolutely no exceptions. Distribution by FTP or Electronic Download If you distribute the Mugshot™ client code by FTP or other electronic download, you have permission to identify the download using the Mugshot™ mark so long as you are otherwise in compliance with these guidelines. If you are using Mugshot™ to identify the download, it must be in compliance with these Mugshot Trademark Guidelines, and you must also display the following statement: “This distribution of Mugshot™ is subject to the Red Hat license for Mugshot™ which may be found at http://mugshot.org/licenses.” Of course, you are always permitted to redistribute the code without utilizing the Mugshot™ mark so long as you otherwise comply with the GNU General Public License. Please bear in mind that you are solely responsible for ensuring that the download you provide complies with these Mugshot Trademark Guidelines. Someone with more technical knowledge than me will need to confirm whether or not that is a problem for FTP, bittorrent etc. If I access an FTP repository via the command line (or if I wget it from http://path.to/download/of/mugshot.deb), how is the required statement to be displayed? If Red Hat consider a README in the same download directory to be good enough then that should be fine, however. Modified Mugshot Client Code – Limited Trademark Permission Red Hat and the Mugshot Project support the extension of Mugshot™ to new platforms and languages. Red Hat grants a limited permission to use the Mugshot™ mark on these modified versions of the Mugshot™ client code Note that is only covers extending Mugshot to other platforms and languages, not distributing modified versions for the same platform or language. But packaging it for Debian probably counts as extension ... to a new platform, especially given the stated purpose of this limited permission being to make Mugshot as widely available as possible (while preserving Red Hat's trade mark rights). provided the following conditions are met: 1. You identify your version of the client code as an adapted version of Mugshot™ in the “About” dialog associated with the Mugshot icon. The attribution statement should be similar to: “Mugshot™ client code adapted for .” I'm guessing that's OK. 2. You do not prefix the named product with Red Hat (e.g. Red Hat Mugshot is not allowed.). That's fine too. 3. The changes you make do not alter the fundamental user experience from that provided by Mugshot™ as made available by Red Hat. That is, you can: 1. localize the client code; 2. provide patches or bug fixes to the client code; 3. provide extensions or plug-ins to the client code; or 4. adapt the client code to run on another platform; but 5. you cannot substantively modify or remove basic components of the client code such that the user experience is altered. 4. You do not redirect the client code to operate with a server other than the server found at mugshot.org Again, that's probably OK too. From a free software POV, it's always open to people to do any of the unpermitted acts under a different name. It is very important that any modified version of Mugshot™ meet (or exceed) the quality level people have come to associate with Mugshot™. Red Hat reserves the right to require persons to cease use of the Mugshot™ mark if they are redistributing software with low quality and efforts to remedy the
