Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: >>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. >> >>Second, I'm not suggesting that we put no restrictions on the logo. I >>would suggest that we require people who copy, modify, or distribute the >>logo to acknowledge the origin of the logo, and not misrepresent it as >>being written by them. > > The point in a traditional common-law trademark is that we don't want > someone to go out and start "Debian Computing, Inc.", use the Debian > open-use logo, and proceed to run a competing organization. > > A trademark license *has* to prohibit such things. Prohibiting > misrepresenting the origin of the *logo* doesn't suffice. We have to > require that the logo, and anything "confusingly similar", is not used to > identify things which aren't Debian.
If that is truly the case, then it is impossible for the logo to be both trademarked and DFSG-free. I sincerely hope that is not the case, but if it is, then I would argue that we should only restrict the Official Use logo in such a manner, and allow the Open Use logo to be DFSG-free. For practical reasons, it is highly-desirable to have a logo that can be included in the distribution. (And, for that matter, in all the wallpapers, splash screens, and similar items that many people make honoring Debian.) >>We should probably also include a copyleft. Such >>restrictions would be DFSG-free, and probably GPL-compatible for that >>matter. I also believe such a restriction, if actually enforced, ought >>to be sufficient to maintain a trademark. (IANAL, hence "ought to be".) > > IANAL but I think it isn't from what I know about trademarks. Trademarks > are very old-fashioned things. That's unfortunate. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
