On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 04:48:59PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2003-10-06 15:46:01 +0100 Eric Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >However, if you look at the logo as a component of Debian as a whole, > >and consider derived works of the logo to be derived works of Debian, > Surely the logo is a work on its own, as well as part of the greater > "Debian" work? A logo is a graphical equivalent of a name. If I have (and I do) a BSDish licensed program that pops up a banner saying (among other things) "Sun Microsystems", you have the right to remove that banner, but not the right to use the name "Sun Microsystems" for your own company. The use of a trademarked logo (whether Debian's or someone else's) can very reasonably follow the same rules. > >and invoke the exception of clause 4 to allow Debian to require > >derived works to carry a diffent name (and by extension, logo), > > then it fits even the letter of the DFSG. > This seems a large and dubious extension of reasoning to me. Seems like Eric hit the nail right on the head to me. I think if you look, you'll find a bunch of logos here and there in Debian (the Apache Foundation's logo, for example). I hope you're not going to argue that we need to purge all logos from our system! > >The spirit of the clause 4 exception is [...] > Can you give a reference that supports your interpretation? I am not > convinced that trademarking in this way is really the spirit of the > fourth guideline. I think we have two choices: either accept that a logo is equivalent to a name and move on, or declare that logos are magically different from names because they're graphical, and start a witch-hunt to purge all "evil" logos (like the apache logo) from Debian. I think you can probably guess which one *I* think is more sane. :) Do you want to advance an argument that would allow us to keep shipping the Apache logo (and perhaps others, such as the FSF's logo or Sun's logo), but not our own? I'll listen, but I'm not holding my breath. :) > Furthermore, I don't think it benefits anyone to waste scarce effort > on enforcing the requirement that all derived works of the Open Use > Logo to only be used for Debian references. Now you're changing the subject. You're also engaging in the logical fallacy, "Affirmation of the Consequent" http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#consequent We may want to change the license - that's a separate argument. The question before us, though, is, do we NEED to change the license because it violates the DFSG? And I think the answer has to be a resounding NO! Now, if you want to ask, should we change the logo license because it'll make our lives easier, I'll answer with a qualified maybe. I'll argue that a logo is equivalent to a name, and therefore it benefits us just as much to protect our logo as it does to protect our name. However, I'll admit that we could change the image from being a logo to being a random glyph we just *happen* to put on all of our webpages. But if it doesn't _mean_ "Debian", then I don't think we can really call it a logo any more. I think we have to start calling it "a random glyph we just happen to have on all of our web pages". But I don't really have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the argument that the presence of an actual logo (or other mark, e.g. an actual name), whether ours or someone else's, constitutes a violation of the DFSG. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
