Hello Steve and *,
Am 2007-04-18 03:39:58, schrieb Steve Langasek:
Er, businesses selling t-shirts using the official debian logo is *not*
permitted. Currently, the manner in which this is being disallowed is
suboptimal, but it's still not something that we *permit*. (Perhaps what
you're
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:43:26PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2007-04-18 03:39:58, schrieb Steve Langasek:
Er, businesses selling t-shirts using the official debian logo is *not*
permitted. Currently, the manner in which this is being disallowed is
suboptimal, but it's still not
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 07:02:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Firstly, much of this thread seems to be taken up by people saying that the
project can't disallow things which we don't think reflect badly on debian
but other people generally do. Why is this
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Further, it's up to *Debian* to decide what uses of the logo reflect badly
on it and consequently should be disallowed because we don't wish to be
associated with them. Your above statement includes an implicit value
judgement about which sorts of
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 07:02:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Further, it's up to *Debian* to decide what uses of the logo reflect badly
on it and consequently should be disallowed because we don't wish to be
associated with them. Your above
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:45 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Yes, these are vague criteria but that is to a certain extent
inherent in trademark law. You don't know what people will do
and how that can affect your trademark.
Wait, the Debian Project should clarify
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 06:26:01PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Actually, I believe we specifically want to authorize diminishing the
distinctiveness or harming the reputation. Trademark dilution and
trademark libel suits are not appropriate for free software, if they are
ever appropriate.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrm, there is a difference between *referencing* a trademark when
criticizing the holder, and *using* the mark, in trade, in a way that
reflects badly on Debian. [...]
Two data points:
SJVN's use of the debian trademark when criticising the
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:26:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrm, there is a difference between *referencing* a trademark when
criticizing the holder, and *using* the mark, in trade, in a way that
reflects badly on Debian. [...]
Two data points:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:05:36 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:45 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Yes, these are vague criteria but that is to a certain extent
inherent in trademark law. You don't know what people will do
and how that can
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't know if Debian logos are actually *registered* marks.
In the US:
The word Debian is a regestered trademark of SPI. Or more accurately, the
word Debian is a trademark registered by SPI on behalf of the Debian
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:05:36 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Ok, then I would suggest moving that out of the first sentence and
into a new paragraph. The above exception only applies for the
situations described in Exhibit Z. Then you can write an Exhibit Z
for your
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:19:19 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:05:36 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Ok, then I would suggest moving that out of the first sentence and
into a new paragraph. The above exception only applies for the
situations
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:19:19 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
The mere fact that I use the name and logo of the project can't
be reason enough to assume affiliation or association.
Mmmh, the Debian Official Use Logo implies endorsement by the Debian
Project.
Yes,
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:11:57 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
To use them as long as there's no confusion going on.
If a logo means endorsement, you cannot use it on non endorsed
products.
If the license works like this, I cannot take the official logo
and use
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:41:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Why would you do that?
Because there can be more than one logo with different meanings.
As you know, the Debian Project has currently two logos[1]:
I understand that. But I think it is sufficient if you
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also don't see a need to indicate a field for the mark when you
license people to do anything with the mark. So maybe you should
just omit the entire Z thing.
How about to avoid accidentally licensing a second mark in a different
field which looks
MJ Ray wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also don't see a need to indicate a field for the mark when you
license people to do anything with the mark. So maybe you should
just omit the entire Z thing.
How about to avoid accidentally licensing a second mark in a different
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:09:11 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:41:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Why would you do that?
Because there can be more than one logo with different meanings.
As you know, the Debian Project has currently two
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:09:11 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
The sign X, registered as a trademark under number $NUM in
$REGION,...
I don't know if Debian logos are actually *registered* marks.
Possibly, they are just unregistered trademarks...
Does anybody know for
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Arnoud Engelfriet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:09:11 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
The sign X, registered as a trademark under number $NUM in
$REGION,...
I don't know if Debian logos are actually *registered* marks.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:45 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Anyway, how do you propose to keep the current role distinction
between the two logos?
TINLA but I don't think that is necessary. Since the license
is do whatever you want as long as it doesn't
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:24:00 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
The sign [X] (hereafter the Mark) is a trademark, rights to which
are held by [Y], representing [Z] if applicable (hereafter the
Mark Holder).
Wait, the Mark Holder would be [Y], I think.
I thought you
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:57:33 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:24:00 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
The sign [X] (hereafter the Mark) is a trademark, rights to
which are held by [Y], representing [Z] if applicable (hereafter
the Mark Holder).
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:57:33 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I thought you used Y and Z for cases where Y is licensing Z's
trademark (if Y is Z's subsidiary or authorized licensee for example).
Then the trademark holder is Z but Y has certain rights to the mark.
Err,
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:41:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:57:33 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I thought you used Y and Z for cases where Y is licensing Z's
trademark (if Y is Z's subsidiary or authorized licensee for
example). Then the
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:29:09 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Your argument is that the trademark holder will win, because the
licensee exceeded the trademark license. I am afraid someone will
argue that the copyright license (from the same entity) should count
for
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:41:21 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:29:09 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Your argument is that the trademark holder will win, because the
licensee exceeded the trademark license. I am afraid someone will
argue that
Francesco Poli wrote:
As I understand it, the current proposed wording is:
| The work [X] is a trademark, held by [Y], representing [Z].
The sign [X] (hereafter the Mark) is a trademark, rights to which
are held by [Y], representing [Z] if applicable (hereafter the
Mark Holder).
The word
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:24:00 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
As I understand it, the current proposed wording is:
| The work [X] is a trademark, held by [Y], representing [Z].
The sign [X] (hereafter the Mark) is a trademark, rights to which
are held by [Y],
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:28:15 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If the Mark qualifies as an original work of authorship under
copyright law, then the above license includes the right to use, copy,
modify, merge, publish, distribute and sell the Mark or any derivative
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:30:15 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
we are trying
to write a good *trademark* license; I would not complicate things
further by trying to write a trademark *and copyright* license.
I would rather avoid mixing those two areas of law.
Francesco Poli wrote:
What I am proposing is just licensing under both laws, but with two
separate grants of permissions: a copyright license (Expat) and a
trademark license (the one we are trying to write).
I understand that. It's certainly possible. But what happens if
someone stays within
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The trademark holder hereby grants permission to any person to use the
trademark
(and derivative marks) in any way except one: you may not use it to falsely
represent something else as being the
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Francesco Poli wrote:
What I am proposing is just licensing under both laws, but with two
separate grants of permissions: a copyright license (Expat) and a
trademark license (the one we are trying to write).
I understand that. It's certainly
Ben Finney wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I understand that. It's certainly possible. But what happens if
someone stays within the bounds of the copyright license, and
strays outside the bounds of the trademark license? Which one wins?
As a copyright holder *and*
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:29:09 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
What I am proposing is just licensing under both laws, but with two
separate grants of permissions: a copyright license (Expat) and a
trademark license (the one we are trying to write).
I understand that.
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:06:39 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Your use of the trademark may not create a sense of endorsement,
sponsorship, or false association with the trademark holder.
Your use of the trademark may not diminish the distinctiveness
of the
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:54:47 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Anyway, I have a question: does the latter (may not [...] harm the
reputation of the trademark holder) prevent me from stating
Debian GNU/Linux sucks badly
Good point. I would say no, as long as
Francesco Poli wrote:
How would the revised wording look like?
Basically, you need to forbid people from doing things with the mark
that create confusion or that make it look like these things are
endorsed by the Debian Project (or SPI?).
I could imagine something like this would be a good
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:28:15 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
How would the revised wording look like?
Basically, you need to forbid people from doing things with the mark
that create confusion or that make it look like these things are
endorsed by the Debian Project
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The trademark holder hereby grants permission to any person to use the
trademark
(and derivative marks) in any way except one: you may not use it to falsely
represent something else as being the thing represented by the trademark.
This
permission should be
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:46:31 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yeargh. I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention in February and didn't
see that Wiki page.
Better late than never! ;-)
Look, we know what we want to do.
(1) License the *copyright* freely as usual.
(2) Restrict the *trademark*
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:06:39 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
[...]
Your use of the trademark may not create a sense of endorsement,
sponsorship, or false association with the trademark holder.
Your use of the trademark may not diminish the distinctiveness
of the trademark or harm the
Yeargh. I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention in February and didn't see that
Wiki
page.
Look, we know what we want to do.
(1) License the *copyright* freely as usual.
(2) Restrict the *trademark* with traditional trademark restrictions only:
it may not be used for deliberate palming off, but
45 matches
Mail list logo
