Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Ken Arromdee wrote: >> >>>Why can't Debian do the same thing that is done with US export licenses? >>>Don't put restrictions on use of the logo bitmap, but say "note that this >>>does not excuse you from obeying the law, which prohibits you from using the >>>trademark to identify your product..." >>> >>>Just make it clear that the license allows use of the logo in the sense that >>>a >>>user of the logo won't be sued for copyright violation, and does not address >>>other reasons why someone might not be allowed to use the logo. >> >>This would leave the logo clearly non-free; the DFSG does not only cover >>copyright-based restrictions on Freedom. > > "Cover," "Freedom," "Leave," and any use of the phrase "clear logo" > are trademarks of their respective owners, so this mail message cannot > be distributed in Debian.
Fortunately, that's impossible, as you can't trademark generic words such as those. Furthermore, I think it has been acknowledged in the past that the contents of the mailing-list archive could probably not be included in the distribution. > See how silly this gets? A trademark restriction isn't an aspect of a > work, and it's not a good idea to trace chains of works to look for > trademarks. A trademark right is to a pairing of an idea and a domain, s/idea/phrase or other identifying mark/ there, I sincerely hope. > while a copyright is to an expression of an idea. Debian's decision > to maintain its trademark rights in both the Open and restricted logos > seems perfectly defensible to me. I have no problem with Debian using trademarks as well as copyrights to enforce its licenses. I *do* have a problem with those licenses being non-DFSG-free. I find the idea of a Free copyright license paired with a non-free trademark license just as objectionable as a Free copyright license paired with a non-free patent license, or as a non-free copyright license. None grant the necessary rights to pass the DFSG. Furthermore, one question to clarify your position on this issue: you keep saying phrases like "perfectly defensible" and similar; does that mean you find the licenses under discussion DFSG-free, or that you find them non-DFSG-free but that it is acceptable for that to be the case? - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
