Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>*This issue*, meaning leading someone to believe that something >>non-Debian is Debian. That doesn't mean they should be limited to using >>the logo only to refer to Debian, only that when referring to something >>else, they can't say that that something else is Debian, whether or not >>they use the logo. Is that not a clear difference? > > No, it's very unclear. The logo means Debian. Any use of it either > refers to Debian, or refers to something that is not Debian, or is > meaningless. If they use it to refer to anything else, they're > infringing the trademark.
I understand that much perfectly. What I'm suggesting that it is OK to
use it to refer to something that isn't Debian, as long as you don't
falsely claim that thing _is_ Debian, as stated below.
> Perhaps it would make this conversation easier to explain that
> trademark law is much more about consumer protection than about the
> intellectual capital of an organization. But it's hard for the
> general public to sue, so the trademark-registering organization gets
> to sue.
Interesting way of putting it.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with it in that way, but I do think that
trademarks are the most equitable, reasonable, and justifiable branch of
that-class-of-law-which-shall-not-be-named-but-also-includes-copyright-and-patent-law.
:)
>>In fact, I think "leading someone to believe that something non-Debian
>>is Debian" is the only thing we really want to prohibit. What if we
>>just said (not proposing a license, just a general idea): "You may use,
>>copy, modify, and distribute this logo for any purpose. However, if you
>>use the logo in a manner which does not refer to Debian, it must be
>>clear that that which it does refer to is not Debian, nor is it endorsed
>>by or affiliated with Debian.". Does that not capture the basic idea of
>>what we want to cover? ("it must be clear" is intentionally vague, so
>>as not to proscribe a method for making it clear; it may be clear
>>without any explicit notice, or it may require some form of explicit
>>notice. Also, obviously the exact wording needs polishing to be more
>>clear about what types of things are "Debian", such as including
>>official Debian products, standards, etc, as well as making the same
>>statement for the trademark on the word "Debian".)
>
> Hm. That one requires thought. That might actually be OK. I'll
> think about edge cases a lot.
Wonderful. I'll let this thread lie dormant for a while, then, since I
don't want to continue arguing this point while you are still
considering it.
I'll need to ponder the edge cases as well, since that was mostly a
general idea with tons of handwaving. :)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
