Sorry to revive this, but it seemed unsettled.
Josh Triplett wrote:
> *sigh*. First of all, this was an analogy, from restrictions placed on
> commercial distributors to other restrictions placed on other fields of
> endeavor. The intent was not to state that the proposed logo license
> restrict
Performing thread necromancy
Josh Triplett wrote:
> There is a strong case for Fair Use of the imagery based on the latter
> two factors. The actual use of the imagery in the game is also
> more-or-less a parody, which is a protected right.
>
> Nevertheless, as you said in your previous mes
> Josh Triplett wrote:
> > The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to
> > change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or
> > hundreds of images *funtionally used* by the software is a significant
> > barrier to modification.
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004
Josh Triplett wrote:
The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to
change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or
hundreds of images *funtionally used* by the software is a significant
barrier to modification.
If the trade marks are being put to
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change
> >>every single occurance of the word "Mozilla" when making a modified
> >>version? :) I said "top-level name", and I meant exactly that. To the
> >>extent
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>*This issue*, meaning leading someone to believe that something
>>>non-Debian is Debian. That doesn't mean they should be limited to using
>>>the logo only to refer to Debian, o
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change
>>every single occurance of the word "Mozilla" when making a modified
>>version? :) I said "top-level name", and I meant exactly that. To the
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>*This issue*, meaning leading someone to believe that something
>>non-Debian is Debian. That doesn't mean they should be limited to using
>>the logo only to refer to Debian, only that when referring to something
>>else, they
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *This issue*, meaning leading someone to believe that something
> non-Debian is Debian. That doesn't mean they should be limited to using
> the logo only to refer to Debian, only that when referring to something
> else, they can't say that that somethin
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to
>>>change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or
>>>hundreds of images *funtionall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis R. Rodriguez) writes:
>> You are free to distribute the images under the GPL. The XCF image is
>> produced from the Debian "Open Use" logo, also provided here
>>
>> http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/grub-images/
>
> Awesome sp
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change
> every single occurance of the word "Mozilla" when making a modified
> version? :) I said "top-level name", and I meant exactly that. To the
> extent names have b
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I still do not believe that there is anything non-free about traditional
> trademark rights; that there is nothing which actually constitutes
> traditional trademark infringement which Debian would want to defend the
> right to do.
To the extent that those trademark right
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:43:15AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Anyone who distributes the work, modified or unmodified. I don't think
>>we can't regulate "use" and be Free; fortunately, most uses of the logo
>>are distributions, such as putting it on a website, or stamping i
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to
>>change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or
>>hundreds of images *funtionally used* by the software is a significant
>>barrie
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But trademarks don't cover works. Your whole message treats
> trademarks as a funny sort of copyright which sometimes doesn't follow
> chains of derivation. They aren't. They're a completely different
> beast.
>
> For example, your model doesn't deal at all with t
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 05:03:30PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> account; I agree that it should have. I don't have much experience with
> designing trademark licenses, as you can tell. Having a trademark license
...
> Why don't we simply start with a permissive copyright license,
> and a stat
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-22 23:22:45 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> A trademark license *has* to prohibit such things. Prohibiting
>> misrepresenting the origin of the *logo* doesn't suffice. We have to
>> require that the logo, and anything "confusingly similar", is
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06:22:45PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The point in a traditional common-law trademark is that we don't want
>> someone to go out and start "Debian Computing, Inc.", use the Debian
>> open-use logo, and proceed to run a competing organization
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>I strongly disagree with that, as I do with anything other than a set of
>>>words being called a name.
>>
>> Why should this be an issue?
>>
>> It's clear that trad
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The logo _should_ be usable as a logo by anybody else, as long as they
> fulfill certain requirements.
You say that in a very general way. I'm not imagining all the
specific ca
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:43:15AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Anyone who distributes the work, modified or unmodified. I don't think
> we can't regulate "use" and be Free; fortunately, most uses of the logo
> are distributions, such as putting it on a website, or stamping it on a
> CD and distr
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>DFSG-free. On the other hand, requirements such as *acknowledge the
>>origin of the logo*, *do not misrepresent the origins of the logo*, and
>>*do not falsely claim endorsement by or affiliation with Debian* are
>>perfectly
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>I strongly disagree with that, as I do with anything other than a set of
>>words being called a name.
>
> Why should this be an issue?
>
> It's clear that trademarks serve an identification role. We interpret
>
But trademarks don't cover works. Your whole message treats
trademarks as a funny sort of copyright which sometimes doesn't follow
chains of derivation. They aren't. They're a completely different
beast.
For example, your model doesn't deal at all with the fact that we have
the string "IBM" pac
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I strongly disagree with that, as I do with anything other than a set of
> words being called a name.
Why should this be an issue?
It's clear that trademarks serve an identification role. We interpret
the DFSG according to its spir
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>> That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the
>> drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that
>> interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that
>> identifies a project. "GCC", "grub", "L
Josh Triplett wrote:
That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the
drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that
interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that
identifies a project. "GCC", "grub", "Linux", and "Apache" are all
names. A lo
Josh Triplett wrote:
Similarly, the logo/"logo image" is used to identify Debian as Debian;
it could be argued (and is currently being argued by many) that we need
a license which prohibits those uses we find "undesirable", such as use
by competing (or even friendly) distributions. Again, this
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Please note that I did not say that a work is non-free if it can be
>>transformed to contain a trademarked item, any more than a work is
>>non-free if it can be transformed to contain a copyrighted work to which
>>we don't have a Fr
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>The trademark rights are entirely separate, and there's no reason for
>>>Debian to license them in any way other than "Free for use if there's
>>>no confusion with Debian, either because they refer to Debian or
>>>because th
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Raul Miller wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in
>roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless.
>>>
>>>On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 0
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>
But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in
roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wr
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> DFSG-free. On the other hand, requirements such as *acknowledge the
> origin of the logo*, *do not misrepresent the origins of the logo*, and
> *do not falsely claim endorsement by or affiliation with Debian* are
> perfectly reasonable.
So the FSF coul
Raul Miller wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>
>>>But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in
>>>roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless.
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt
Raul Miller wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>>>So... what is the DFSG restriction that's violated?
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:51:50PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>DFSG 6.
>>
>>Suppose I wrote a license that granted all the standard rights to use,
>>copy, modify, and distribute, but that placed so
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>No; the problem is that the *work*, meaning the Debian logo, would be
>>non-free, because it would not grant all the rights required by the
>>DFSG. Specifically, you could not take the logo and use it in any way
>>you choose
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:20:33 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that this is an equivalent situation...
> > I could be misleaded by my opinion that software patents are an
> > abuse and should not exist in the first place, but anyway I'll try
> > and clarify what my position i
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 10:58:44PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> My point was exactly the opposite. I'm not saying that Debian should grant
> trademark permissions--I'm saying that, going by the precedent of the
> scientific credit example in the FAQ, Debian doesn't have to grant any
> trademark pe
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Yet unlike the software patent or export case, it *is* within the power of
> > the software writer to grant the permission that's being denied. He can
> > say "I don't care if you misrepresent me. Go ahead and don't give me
> > credit."
> > Th
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:59:54 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Well, yes, but if I offer you the MS Visual C++ source code to package
>> for Debian, and I tell you I'll give it to you under the GPL, you'll
>> turn me down. Even though I give the r
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:59:54 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Well, yes, but if I offer you the MS Visual C++ source code to package
> for Debian, and I tell you I'll give it to you under the GPL, you'll
> turn me down. Even though I give the relevant permissions, and it's
> the copyright hold
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yet unlike the software patent or export case, it *is* within the power of
> the software writer to grant the permission that's being denied. He can
> say "I don't care if you misrepresent me. Go ahead and don't give me credit."
> The "other obligations
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Francesco Poli wrote:
> That's because it's not Apache's license that fails to permit this use
> (or attempt to restric this use): it's the existence of an unrelated
> software patent.
> Apache Software Foundation gives this permission, it's the one-click
> shopping patent hold
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's because it's not Apache's license that fails to permit this
> use (or attempt to restric this use): it's the existence of an
> unrelated software patent. Apache Software Foundation gives this
> permission, it's the one-click shopping patent holde
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in
> > roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the
> d
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>On the other hand, if you take the source code to GCC and format it
>>>into the shape of a Coca Cola trademark, then you can't use it for
>>>selling soft drinks. Does this mean that GCC is not free?
>>
>>No, no more than the
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:14:08 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Trademark problems only arise when the image is used in a
> > > particular way. I would think that Debian is not obliged to and
> > > cannot give permission for all possible uses of Debian
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:06:34 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> See also libdvdcss, a piece of software that is Free Software in all
> jurisdictions except the United States, in which its use is restricted
> by ridiculous laws.
If you are referring to DMCA, I'm afraid that EUCD is very much similar
in
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The trademark rights are entirely separate, and there's no reason for
>> Debian to license them in any way other than "Free for use if there's
>> no confusion with Debian, either because they refer to Debian or
>> because they're in a domain where Debia
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On the other hand, if you take the source code to GCC and format it
>> into the shape of a Coca Cola trademark, then you can't use it for
>> selling soft drinks. Does this mean that GCC is not free?
>
> No, no more than the fact that you can't modify th
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Trademark problems only arise when the image is used in a particular
> > way. I would think that Debian is not obliged to and cannot give
> > permission for all possible uses of Debian software.
>
> We most certainly can and should.
We can't give permission
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please note that I did not say that a work is non-free if it can be
> transformed to contain a trademarked item, any more than a work is
> non-free if it can be transformed to contain a copyrighted work to which
> we don't have a Free license, such as the sourc
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 06:15:23PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 12:06:53PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>
>>>As an mildly-related aside: what is the policy on short snippets of
>>>material, presumably included under some variant of Fair Use? I kno
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>I acknowledge that all of those classes of law are quite different in
>>many ways. Nevertheless, the DFSG does not differentiate among methods
>>of restricting Freedom.
>
> That's because they're guidelines, though you seem to wan
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 06:15:23PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 12:06:53PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > As an mildly-related aside: what is the policy on short snippets of
> > material, presumably included under some variant of Fair Use? I know of
> > one package (fille
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
>Why can't Debian do the same thing that is done with US export licenses?
>Don't put restrictions on use of the logo bitm
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I acknowledge that all of those classes of law are quite different in
> many ways. Nevertheless, the DFSG does not differentiate among methods
> of restricting Freedom.
That's because they're guidelines, though you seem to want to apply
them legalistically wi
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 12:06:53PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> As an mildly-related aside: what is the policy on short snippets of
> material, presumably included under some variant of Fair Use? I know of
> one package (fillets-ng) which contains a very brief clip (about a
> second, I think) con
Raul Miller wrote:
> > So... what is the DFSG restriction that's violated?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:51:50PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> DFSG 6.
>
> Suppose I wrote a license that granted all the standard rights to use,
> copy, modify, and distribute, but that placed some non-free restriction
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No; the problem is that the *work*, meaning the Debian logo, would be
> non-free, because it would not grant all the rights required by the
> DFSG. Specifically, you could not take the logo and use it in any way
> you choose, in any field of endeavor, i
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>A Free logo, like any other Free image or Free work in general, must be
>>usable for any purpose.
>
> It is, provided you modify it sufficiently. You could use it to make
> your own trademark, for example.
That is not sufficient.
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>Ken Arromdee wrote:
>>>
Why can't Debian do the same thing that is done with US export licenses?
Don't put restrictions on use of the logo bitmap, but say "note that this
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 12:06:53PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>No, I don't believe it does. The DFSG is not specific to
>>copyright-based restrictions, and the default restrictions on trademarks
>>seem to be too strict for Freedom, since they would restrict the use of
>>the
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The work is not a trademark. The work bears a trademark. Much as
> with the patent issue, keeping your intuition about copyright licenses
> and carrying them into the trademark domain will lead you to confusing
> and incorrect conclusions.
I acknowledge that all of
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Ken Arromdee wrote:
>>
>>>Why can't Debian do the same thing that is done with US export licenses?
>>>Don't put restrictions on use of the logo bitmap, but say "note that this
>>>does not excuse you from obeying the law, whic
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Why can't Debian do the same thing that is done with US export licenses?
> > Don't put restrictions on use of the logo bitmap, but say "note that this
> > does not excuse you from obeying the law, which prohibits you from using the
> > trademark to iden
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>>Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
>>the uses of unmodified or "insuff
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>>
Josh Triplett wrote:
>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ken Arromdee wrote:
>> Why can't Debian do the same thing that is done with US export licenses?
>> Don't put restrictions on use of the logo bitmap, but say "note that this
>> does not excuse you from obeying the law, which prohibits you from using the
>
The work is not a trademark. The work bears a trademark. Much as
with the patent issue, keeping your intuition about copyright licenses
and carrying them into the trademark domain will lead you to confusing
and incorrect conclusions.
For example, if you draw a spiral-and-bottle like the Debian l
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A Free logo, like any other Free image or Free work in general, must be
> usable for any purpose.
It is, provided you modify it sufficiently. You could use it to make
your own trademark, for example.
On the other hand, if you take the source code to GCC and f
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 12:06:53PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> No, I don't believe it does. The DFSG is not specific to
> copyright-based restrictions, and the default restrictions on trademarks
> seem to be too strict for Freedom, since they would restrict the use of
> the logo.
Anyone can use
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free
>>license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that
>>does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested
>>licenses were very
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Why can't Debian do the same thing that is done with US export licenses?
> Don't put restrictions on use of the logo bitmap, but say "note that this
> does not excuse you from obeying the law, which prohibits you from using the
> trademark to identify your product..."
>
> Jus
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Just put a "This copyright license does not grant a trademark license"
>>disclaimer after your choice of standard license, and I think we're set,
>>right?
>
> That's what I would have thought. Does anyone disagree?
>
> (However
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>
>>>Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>
Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
>>>
>>>Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresen
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free
>>license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that
>>does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested
>>licenses were very clearly non-DFSG-f
Why can't Debian do the same thing that is done with US export licenses?
Don't put restrictions on use of the logo bitmap, but say "note that this
does not excuse you from obeying the law, which prohibits you from using the
trademark to identify your product..."
Just make it clear that the license
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06:37:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Just put a "This copyright license does not grant a trademark license"
> disclaimer after your choice of standard license, and I think we're set,
> right?
I don't think that's necessary -- I don't know that it's a problem, but...
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Just put a "This copyright license does not grant a trademark license"
> disclaimer after your choice of standard license, and I think we're set,
> right?
That's what I would have thought. Does anyone disagree?
(However, I would add something along the lin
On 2004-09-22 23:22:45 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
A trademark license *has* to prohibit such things. Prohibiting
misrepresenting the origin of the *logo* doesn't suffice. We have to
require that the logo, and anything "confusingly similar", is not
used to
identify thi
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
>>>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
>>
>> Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works,
>> projects
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06:22:45PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> > First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free
> > license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that
> > does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe th
Josh Triplett wrote:
> First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free
> license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that
> does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested
> licenses were very clearly non-DFSG-free.
>
> Second, I'm not
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06:41:29PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Does it qualify as DFSG-free if you give it a free copyright licence
> without granting any kind of trademark licence?
Trademark license is orthogonal to copyright license.
Trademark laws are more like truth in advertising la
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free
> license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that
> does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested
> licenses were very clearly non-DFSG-free.
Does
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
>>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
>
> Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works,
> projects, and organizations as belongi
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
>>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
>
> Trademark law limits what can be done here. Granting a trademark license
> (explicitly or
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
> the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works,
projects, and organizations as belonging to/being endorsed by/being p
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
> the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
Trademark law limits what can be done here. Granting a trademark license
(explicitly or implicitly) that allows peopl
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>>I think the open use logo itself should be DFSG-free, but it probably
>>should be accompanied by a trademark license. I'll contact SPI to see
>>what needs to be done to change the license, and I've asked Matthew
>>Garrett to discuss the trademark
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> What would a good license for the logo be?
I'd personally suggest a MIT style license like the following:
Copyright (c)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this Work, to deal in
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:51:26AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > I think the open use logo itself should be DFSG-free, but it probably
> > should be accompanied by a trademark license. I'll contact SPI to see
> > what needs to be done to change the license, and I've
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I think the open use logo itself should be DFSG-free, but it probably
> should be accompanied by a trademark license. I'll contact SPI to see
> what needs to be done to change the license, and I've asked Matthew
> Garrett to discuss the trademark issue with SPI's trademar
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 05:21:16PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-17 15:23]:
> > The Debian Open Use Logo License is generally considered to be
> > non-DFSG free. However, it appears to be a widely held belief
> > that Debian
* David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-17 15:23]:
> The Debian Open Use Logo License is generally considered to be
> non-DFSG free. However, it appears to be a widely held belief
> that Debian should have _some_ logo that is DFSG-free, and that
> the license of the open logo should be change
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:15:39AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> >Do you want us to remove you guys off this thread until we settle the
> >score?
> >
> I am fine with being on the list, but please refrain from blaming SPI
> for this not being done. There were a number of comments to that effect
>
On 18-8-2004 08:22, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Please arrange for your project to officially change the license. The
>> project leader can do it by fiat (it is a simple thing, after all) or
>> you can do it through your resolution process. Tell us when you are done.
>
> Any
Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
I figured but was mentioned on the thread SPI would be holder of the
copyrights.
Yes. Holder on Debian's behalf. You folks are in the driver's seat.
Was also advised to e-mail trademark lists.
They probably have something to contribute regarding the form of
license
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
