Re: GNOME Logo Licensing

2017-03-13 Thread Allan Day
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > That was what I would have said, if Simon didn't put it so eloquently. > So +1 for a permissive license for the artwork itself, we can control > its usage through the GNOME trademark. > Thanks for the contributions

Re: GNOME Logo Licensing

2017-03-13 Thread Bastien Nocera
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 12:43 +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 at 00:52:25 +, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > > There has been many instances of us protecting our brand by asking > > people to > > stop using our logo for commercial purposes, CC-BY-SA/LGPLv3 does > > grant > > precisely

Re: GNOME Logo Licensing

2017-03-13 Thread Simon McVittie
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 at 00:52:25 +, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > There has been many instances of us protecting our brand by asking people to > stop using our logo for commercial purposes, CC-BY-SA/LGPLv3 does grant > precisely the right to use it commercially. There are two things a third party

Re: GNOME Logo Licensing

2017-03-11 Thread Alberto Ruiz
Hey Meg, I am curious, is there any particular reason why we want to open the logo beyond the current fair use protection? It seems to me that by opening it we may be enabling unpredictable harming uses of our most important piece of identity. I do not think it is comparable to GTK or icon

GNOME Logo Licensing

2017-03-10 Thread meg ford
Hi, Recently the licensing of the GNOME logo has come up in board discussions. The asset is currently trademarked but we do not have a license for it as far as we can determine [0]. We would like to propose licensing the asset with dual LGPLv3/CC-BY-SA-4.0. This is similar to the license used by