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. Therefore, using the Debian logo to claim endorsement by Debian without permission is already illegal, so the Debian logo license should not mention it. > 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. Your proposed licenses did not permit any use of an unmodified or insufficiently modified logo, except to refer to Debian. Instead, what you probably want is something similar to the clauses from the zlib license: "The origin of this software must not be misrepresented" and "Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such". As for not permitting others to claim endorsement by or affiliation with Debian, that is already not permitted. > Anyway, as someone else said, if you don't defend your trademark against > those particular uses, you don't have a trademark anymore. The original > and primary purpose of a trademark is to identify a business/product > distinctively. Preventing uses which cause confusion as to the identity or > source of your product or business is what you have to do in order to keep > your trademark at all. That's completely unrelated to whether the suggested licenses are DFSG-free or not. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature