On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:57:06AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > 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. The difference is that a logo may also be a copyrightable work of art (which the existing Debian logo policy asserts), but a name never is. > > >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! By no means; but there are explicit copyright terms currently attached to the Debian logo, which cannot be ignored. Using copyright law instead of trademark law to protect a mark clearly offers some advantages to the holder; this is, after all, one of the reasons why Disney is so keen to ensure a perpetual copyright on Mickey Mouse. In our case, I think it's generally agreed that these strengths aren't worth the costs of an inconsistent copyright policy, but the licensing on the logos first needs to be brought into line with this sentiment. In reality, we don't pose much of a threat to our own redistributors on this point, so the fact that we're working on revising the licensing terms of the logo could be regarded as sufficient to render it DFSG free from a practical standpoint. OTOH, if we are planning to replace the copyright license with a trademark policy, we will need to be prepared to enforce that policy, because trademark law doesn't allow us the same latitude for selective enforcement that copyright law does -- so distributing the logo under DFSG terms may not be in our best interest unless we're ready on the trademark front, since it could lead to a loss of control over use of the mark in the long term. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpGMp0EsTDdR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
