On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:02:59AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > 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.
I don't see how that follows, unless you fail to distinguish between Debian-the-project and Debian-the-distribution. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
