On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:20, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Trying to achieve this with copyright alone will be awkward, because
> copyright is the wrong tool for this. Instead, you may want to consider
> registering a trademark for your logo. This would give you control
> over its use, while at the same time it could be under a free
> (copyright) license.
The creative commons licenses are based on copyright law. Without the
copyright would not exist the copyleft either but everything would be
under "public domain" but also the legal term "public domain" would
not exist, also. It would be a "public domain" de facto: I take a
previous work, I do what I want with it unless someone stops me in
doing that. The copyright law allows people to put restrictions on
"unruled de-facto public domain" and GPLv2, and v3 even more, does it.
People who accept it, should comply with "restrictions" compared with
the "unruled de-facto public domain" like sharing the code, etc.
> For example, the Gentoo logo has CC-BY-SA as its copyright license
> while at the same time it is protected as a trademark with some usage
> guidelines [1].
>
> The downside is that registering a trademark requires some paperwork
> and costs money. You'd also need a legal entity as the trademark
> holder.
Copyright protects the implementation of something while trademark and
patent provides a broader and a more specific protection or
limitation, as you like. However, a small change in an image, like a
pixel with a different color or a different shade of the same color
clearly produces a derivative work. The CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 provides
protection (or limitations) for that kind of work. Hence, someone who
wishes to use a similar logo should create an image which is clearly
something original compared to the original work. This is not a
protection as strong and as specific as the trademark but usually
enough.
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:25, <c.bu...@posteo.jp> wrote:
> I concerned about two aspects here.
> "non-commercial". What about GNU/Linux distros like Canonical Ubuntu.
> They do sell their distro. But in this case the might not to be allowed
> to use the logo of backintime when they do package it.
>
Canonical does not "commercialize" the distro, but the support service
about their distro. In fact, Ubuntu and Canonical are two separate
entities AFAIK. ChatGPT confirmed that, and we can take it as a
first-degree confutation/confirmation check. Unless, we are forced to
dig deeper into this topic. However, it is their "problem". If they
see a problem, they will ask for, or wait for a cease-and-desist
letter that obviously will possibly never be sent.
> "NoDerivates": As project maintainers we would like to have the ability
> to modify the logo from time to time. For example using another color
> palette or integrate the logo into another picture.
Accordingly with the author, others can change the licensed logo. Also
the trademark needs a legal entity (a person is a legal entity) to
manage it. Both, need someone that play the role of the {copyright,
trademark, logo} holder and maintenair. Every project as well. You
might disagree and you might be right depending on the license that
contributors accepted for delivery of their contributions. However, in
general it exists a legal entity (can be an informal group of
contributors) that owns the work.
Best regards, R-
