On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:46:53PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:27:18PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > I can't see a problem there (it's much stricter for the "official use" > > logo), but there are no restrictions upon use or derived works, so I > > think it's OK. (It's certainly used by many other Debian packages!) > > IANAL, but AFAIK when a license doesn't explicitly allow something, it means > it's not allowed. > > I'm adding CC to debian-legal. Can you people send your advice?
The Debian Open Use Logo License is generally considered to be non-DFSG free. However, it appears to be a widely held belief that Debian should have _some_ logo that is DFSG-free, and that the license of the open logo should be changed to make this so. I think because of the latter, there has never been a logo purge of main. Perhaps an attempted logo purge would convince SPI to act on this matter. See this thread for additional commentary: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00840.html It's somewhat amusing that debian-legal routinely convinces people to change to DFSG-free licenses, but can't seem to affect its own organization. dave...
