On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:30:20AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote: > > Simon Law: > > > > > That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But > > > that doesn't mean that our logo is _free software_. For reference, > > > please read the debian-legal thread I linked to. > > > > To me the argument falls flat here before it even starts: the logotype > > isn't software, and can't be treated as such, even less than > > documentation can be treated as software (which also is quite an absurd > > notion). > > If it is absurd to treat logos and documentation as software, then it > is absurd to include them in Debian. >
And you can take it one step further and say it is absurd for an organization dedicated to free software to have a logo (in the corporate sense) at all. One may want some kind of decoration that indicates an affinity to Debian is but then it should be under the most liberal license possible. Documentation is a different because you need it to operate the software but you can't say that about a logo. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
