On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: >> [I'm not interested in playing bts tennis.] > Thanks.
Although it would have be nice if you would have just tagged it wontfix and/or sarge-ignore and kept it open so the discussion could have been Cc:'ed to the bug. >> 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. Precisely, which is exactly why we do not distribute the official logo in main. >> 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 don't think replacing the official logo with the open use logo is drastic... especially since the patch is so trivial. >> 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. That would (most likely) require the proposal of a GR or a change in terms by whoever holds the trademark (SPI?). Until the GR passes, the official logo is still not free, and shouldn't be in main. Don Armstrong -- Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee -- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
