Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: >>Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> >>>Josh Triplett wrote: >>> >>>>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict >>>>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions. >>> >>>Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works, >>>projects, and organizations as belonging to/being endorsed by/being part >>>of Debian. >>> >>>That's a standard, acceptable class of restrictions, isn't it? This >>>really *is* about misrepresentation and nothing more. >> >>If that is truly the case, then you don't need to say that at all in the >>license. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00540.html >>and the resulting thread. Claiming endorsement by someone else without >>their permission is already illegal. > > That's for a *person*, whose name has its own rules. Organizations, > particularly unincorporated organizations (corporations are often > considered "people" by the law), are sometimes different.
Interesting. I'm certainly not a person who would argue for extending the rights of people to organizations and corporations. :) But in this narrow case, it seems more than reasonable that the law should prohibit saying "Endorsed by Debian" if that is not the case. If this is not true, I would be quite surprised. > We also want to prevent "accidental" misrepresentation where someone else > "just happens to" use the same name (Debian) or logo (swirl) for their > proprietary software company. That's not actually claiming endorsement; > they're just attempting to confuse people without actually making a claim; > but it is common-law trademark infringement. This is a branding issue > vaguely akin to requiring name changes for forks. That's a much broader restriction. Prohibiting false endorsement seems quite reasonable, whether or not they use the Debian logo. Prohibiting all uses of the logo that don't refer to Debian is far broader, and in my opinion clearly in non-free territory. > Under US trademark law, if some unrelated company sets up as "Debian > Computing" and proceeds to operate as such, with Debian's knowledge, and > Debian does not try to stop it, Debian will lose its trademark in the name > "Debian", and the company will be able to go on using its name forever. Is > this desirable? I assumed not. Is preventing this Free? I assumed yes. I believe the answer would be "no, preventing that use of the logo is not Free". If the logo cannot be used, unmodified, to refer to anything but Debian, that seems blatantly non-free. Now, whether we want to permit some business to actually _call themselves_ "Debian Computing" is independent of whether we make the logo license Free. I find the idea of restricting such naming far less objectionable. > Now, trademark law nowadays allows the regulation of trademark use pretty > heavily. Debian probably wants to allow anything *except* for deliberate > attempts to confuse people. Exactly to what extent we want to allow others > to use the Debian name and logo to confuse people is another matter. :-) I honestly believe that as long as people are not allowed to falsely claim endorsement, and that they must acknowledge the origins of the logo, that would be sufficient to prevent confusion. >>>If I have accidentally made the restrictions broader than that in my >>>proposed licenses, then it's a mistake which should be fixed. >> >>I belive that is what happened, yes. > > OK. :-) That's a good argument for separate trademark and copyright > licenses; it prevents accidental contamination by sloppy writing such as > mine. > > Well, since we're agreed on the copyright licensing terms, how about we go > ahead and do that. > > Just put a "This copyright license does not grant a trademark license" > disclaimer after your choice of standard license, and I think we're set, > right? As I said above, that is again broader than just prohibiting false endorsement. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
