Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free > license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that > does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested > licenses were very clearly non-DFSG-free.
Does it qualify as DFSG-free if you give it a free copyright licence without granting any kind of trademark licence? If it doesn't, what exactly are the situations in which a trademark licence is required in addition to a copyright licence? I note that many packages contain the word "Microsoft" without there being a DFSG-free licence for that trademark, so a line would have to be drawn somewhere between the two cases; I can't immediately see how or why.
