On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 09:47:27AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > In contrast with what we require for the software we distribute, we are > forbidding to use some of our logos for profit. While there are some clear > differences between software and carriers of visual identity, I feel that > there > is a strong mismatch between what we ask and what we give, if we reduce a > software on one side, and Debian's reputation on the other side, to the fruit > of the efforts of their makers. Said differently, I see a contradiction > between forbidding people making money by printing our name on T-shirts, and > requiring that all the software we distribute can be used for profit.
I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I think most of us agree with that and side comments in the (not so) recent threads about how to deal with trademarks in the archive [1] seem to confirm that impression. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/02/msg00073.html > I would like to know your position or vision on our trademarks and logos, and, > if you indend to work on that question as a DPL, what would be the key points > of your action. Historically, the reason for having a restrictive copyright license was related to the fear of losing the Debian trademark (note: a registered trademark on the DEBIAN *name*, the Debian logo is not a registered trademark) due to an excessively liberal license. I've worked on this, with the help of SFLC and of other FOSS projects or foundations who have had to face similar issues in the past (e.g. GNOME, and Software Freedom Conservancy on a related issue). It is now clear to me that there is no reason we couldn't have a DFSG-compatible license on our logo. However, to do thing properly, I need we should follow the following chain of events / decisions: a. Decide our position on the acceptability of trademark restrictions (of various kinds) in the archive *and document it*: in the past we have took decisions on a case by case basis, without coming to a general project position on the matter (also, I've been asked by ftp-master to help on this matter [2] and gladly accepted). Work on this point has been going on; a recent summary is at [3]. [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/07/msg00031.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/02/msg00073.html b. Update our trademark policy [4]. The one we have now is quite vague and discourage usage of the Debian name more than needed, as observed by people who has worked on revamping it in the past [5]. I've worked on a draft of a new trademark policy, with the substantial help of Benjamin Mako Hill and of SFLC. I haven't yet submitted it to the Project for discussion yet just due to lack of time --- and possibly a minor desire to complete (b) first. I hope to be able to do that before the end of the term. Admittedly, this is one of the long running tasks that will likely overflow this term and that I'd like to have a change to supervise and bring to completion in the next one, if elected. [4] http://www.debian.org/trademark [5] http://wiki.mako.cc/TrademarkFreedom c. Re-license Debian logos under a DFSG-free license. This is trivial to do, we should just ask SPI to do so, but I see (b) as a precondition for this. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o . Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
