Re: GNOME trademark guidelines and user group agreement
Pada hari Jumat, tanggal 09/09/2005 pukul 10:02 +0200, Dave Neary menulis: That's what it says. I believe that we are going to handle logo modifications on a case-by-case basis. Please let us know if you want to use a modified logo, and as long as it's a reasonable usage, there will be no problem. Hello, We will soon have logo usage guidelines which outline what we consider good and bad logo use. Any news on this issue? Cheers, Dave. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME trademark guidelines and user group agreement
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Elijah Newren wrote: On 9/9/05, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, David Neary wrote: Let's say that it was a mistake, or that distributing the foot under the GPL is incompatible with defending it as a trademark - what remedy do you think we should consider? Seems like that's what redhat does these days: releasing their product which is Free Software, but you cannot redistribute due to trademarks. Don't flame me for what I just said, it's here: http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html You can redistribute the source code for Red Hat's RHEL offerings and/or binaries you compile from it, IF you remove Red Hat's trademarks first (which yes, means it isn't RHEL any more, but it's close enough for many); see http://www.centos.org/ and others. Indeed. But the article discusses how magazines cannot distribute RHEL. Also, from the pre-Fedora days, there has been a distribution called Pink Tie which was exactly Red Hat Linux with trademarks removed and renamed. Funnier is that you can get the source code for Fedora Core and remove that silly End User License Agreement, and you have not violated any laws... --behdad http://behdad.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME trademark guidelines and user group agreement
On Sul, 2005-09-11 at 12:57 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: Indeed. But the article discusses how magazines cannot distribute RHEL. RHEL is a support and service arrangement with attached product, so no a magazine could never distribute it. Centos is just code and they do Funnier is that you can get the source code for Fedora Core and remove that silly End User License Agreement, and you have not violated any laws... Untrue - if you are a US company and remove it and resell you may be breaking various US export regulations and other laws. Alan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME trademark guidelines and user group agreement
On Sel, 2005-08-30 at 20:19 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: feedback from the GNOME community. If you need permission to use the GNOME trademarks in other ways or have other questions, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/usergroup/ in 2.c: You may not modify, create derivative works or make any use of the Licensed Works other than as expressly permitted by this License; Does it mean we can't use our own logo derived from GNOME's logo? http://id.gnome.org/wp-content/themes/idgnome/images/logo.png ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME trademark guidelines and user group agreement
On 9/9/05, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, David Neary wrote: Let's say that it was a mistake, or that distributing the foot under the GPL is incompatible with defending it as a trademark - what remedy do you think we should consider? Seems like that's what redhat does these days: releasing their product which is Free Software, but you cannot redistribute due to trademarks. Don't flame me for what I just said, it's here: http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html You can redistribute the source code for Red Hat's RHEL offerings and/or binaries you compile from it, IF you remove Red Hat's trademarks first (which yes, means it isn't RHEL any more, but it's close enough for many); see http://www.centos.org/ and others. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME trademark guidelines and user group agreement
On Sel, 2005-08-30 at 20:19 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: feedback from the GNOME community. If you need permission to use the GNOME trademarks in other ways or have other questions, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/usergroup/ in 2.c: You may not modify, create derivative works or make any use of the Licensed Works other than as expressly permitted by this License; Does it mean we can't use our own logo derived from GNOME's logo? http://id.gnome.org/wp-content/themes/idgnome/images/logo.png Yes, trademark law makes it very difficult for us to allow these. You should request special permission from [EMAIL PROTECTED] for such a modified trademark. I doubt that we'd approve anything other than an addition which didn't change the original part of the trademark. Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME trademark guidelines and user group agreement
Hi, Mohammad Anwari a écrit : http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/usergroup/ in 2.c: You may not modify, create derivative works or make any use of the Licensed Works other than as expressly permitted by this License; Does it mean we can't use our own logo derived from GNOME's logo? http://id.gnome.org/wp-content/themes/idgnome/images/logo.png That's what it says. I believe that we are going to handle logo modifications on a case-by-case basis. Please let us know if you want to use a modified logo, and as long as it's a reasonable usage, there will be no problem. We will soon have logo usage guidelines which outline what we consider good and bad logo use. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME trademark guidelines and user group agreement
That's what it says. I believe that we are going to handle logo modifications on a case-by-case basis. Please let us know if you want to use a modified logo, and as long as it's a reasonable usage, there will be no problem. The logo has repeatedly been supplied as part of official GNOME distribution products labelled as GPL and when this has been pointed out the board has neither replied nor taken action to correct or indicate this was a mistake. Alan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME trademark guidelines and user group agreement
Hi Alan, Can you explain to me the relationship between the GPL, and the logo? I mean, is the GPL (for image files) essentially equivalent to a CC share-alike licence? What impact does distributing (say) a foot as a PNG have in the actual representation of the shape of the foot, or its representation as (say) an SVG? As far as I know, the GNOME foot has never been released in a vector format under the GPL. Let's say that it was a mistake, or that distributing the foot under the GPL is incompatible with defending it as a trademark - what remedy do you think we should consider? Cheers, Dave. Alan Cox wrote: That's what it says. I believe that we are going to handle logo modifications on a case-by-case basis. Please let us know if you want to use a modified logo, and as long as it's a reasonable usage, there will be no problem. The logo has repeatedly been supplied as part of official GNOME distribution products labelled as GPL and when this has been pointed out the board has neither replied nor taken action to correct or indicate this was a mistake. Alan -- Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lyon, France ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME trademark guidelines and user group agreement
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, David Neary wrote: Let's say that it was a mistake, or that distributing the foot under the GPL is incompatible with defending it as a trademark - what remedy do you think we should consider? Seems like that's what redhat does these days: releasing their product which is Free Software, but you cannot redistribute due to trademarks. Don't flame me for what I just said, it's here: http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html behdad Cheers, Dave. Alan Cox wrote: That's what it says. I believe that we are going to handle logo modifications on a case-by-case basis. Please let us know if you want to use a modified logo, and as long as it's a reasonable usage, there will be no problem. The logo has repeatedly been supplied as part of official GNOME distribution products labelled as GPL and when this has been pointed out the board has neither replied nor taken action to correct or indicate this was a mistake. Alan --behdad http://behdad.org/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
