On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: > [Jaldar: I'm shifting this discussion to debian-legal and maintaining > you on the Cc: list. Appologies if you are subscribed.] >
No I'm not so please keep the Cc: on any replies. > [Legal: I'm leaving the bug closed for right now, since I'm not > interested in playing bts tennis.] > Thanks. > When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the > entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently > interpreted it this way. > For documentation I can still understand the reasoning but a logo? A logo in order to be a a logo has to be very strictly defined. A long time ago I used to work for Merrill Lynch. They had a thick book of guidelines about how the logo could be used. In fact everytime we did a website the logo usage had to cleared by lawyers. A comparison can be made to a license. Just because the GPL says "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." does that make any packages containing it non-free? It is totally legitimate for the Debian logo to be much more restricted than software or even documentation. > That might be true, but it's ambiguity doesn't change it's free or > non-freeness. > Yes but it suggests that the issue can be resolved without taking drastic steps. > I'm not discussing the legality of your distribution of the official > logo, merely the fact that the offical logo is not free. > So make it free then (If you don't find my argument above persuasive.) Unlike the GNU documentation case (where I note we are exercising a lot of patience before chucking things out) we control the logo and its license. I don't think any GR or anything would be necessary either. In fact probably anyone with CVS access to the web pages could do it. I think its the height of absurdity that Debian can't even use its own logo in its own packages. I'd like to see that fixed. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
