Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 18:55, Soren Stoutner wrote: > > (something that the Free Software Foundation recommends as a best > practice, although it has become uncommon in recent years). > Guess why (no need to answer, it is a rhetorical question) > Trademark law (which varies by country) basically

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

Hello Mihai, Thank you for your reply. Am 27.08.2024 14:36 schrieb Mihai Moldovan: My parting words are: do not make the situation more complicated than it really is. It is highly unlikely that your logo will be abused, keep the complete work free and as an added bonus you will not have to worry

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

If you're more concerned about trademark issues, you could probably just use CC-BY and then mention somewhere that rhe logo is trademarked (as long as you don't use the (R) symbol implying registration of those trademarks). Alternatively, if you want to use CC-BY-ND, your icon would not be distrib

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

* On 8/27/24 12:21, c.bu...@posteo.jp wrote: The "original source" of the logo is an SVG file. From that SVG we "generate" some png or ico files used as icons to display in a file manager or the application GUI. Might it be a way that the author of the original source (SVG) logo give the proje

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

Okay, so a couple of things... 1. A trademark is technically automatic for any mark you are actively using in trade. You don't necessarily need to register it to have it. This isn't always the best approach, but realistically, people are unlikely to copy your logo anyway, so this might be enough t

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

Hello Daniel, thank you for your reply. Am 27.08.2024 14:18 schrieb Daniel Hakimi: 2. Are you worried about consumer confusion from somebody using your logo or a logo that kind of seems like yours (trademark), or are you worried about protecting the image, the artwork, and the style of artwork

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:45, wrote: > > Dear Roberto, > it seems to me you try to distract the discussion somewhere else instead > of focusing on my situation. > > I appreciate your efforts to help but I don't see how your comments can > help me. It seems to me you even don't understand my situat

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

Dear Roberto, it seems to me you try to distract the discussion somewhere else instead of focusing on my situation. I appreciate your efforts to help but I don't see how your comments can help me. It seems to me you even don't understand my situation. I might wasn't clear enough with describi

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:31, wrote: > > Am 27.08.2024 12:55 schrieb Roberto A. Foglietta: > > As long as the SVG is a separate file loaded at running time > > That is not what I had in mind. > The conversation from SVG into png/ico would be done manually on one > machine of one of the developers/

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

Hello Simon, thank you for clarify things. Am 27.08.2024 13:08 schrieb Simon McVittie: Officially, the only authority on what is and isn't allowed in Debian is the archive administrators team (ftp team), . Unofficially, please don't waste their limited time.

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

Am 27.08.2024 12:55 schrieb Roberto A. Foglietta: As long as the SVG is a separate file loaded at running time That is not what I had in mind. The conversation from SVG into png/ico would be done manually on one machine of one of the developers/maintainers.

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 12:52, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:58:02 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > > A logo is not a software. A logo displayed into a software does not > > change the nature of the work, as free software. > > This point of view matches the policy of most

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 10:25:34 +, c.bu...@posteo.jp wrote: > This sounds to me that it is not clear if "CC BY-NC-ND 4.0" is allowed in > Debian GNU/Linux or not. Am I right? No, the policy is quite clear. CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 is not a Free Software license according to the Debian Free Software Gui

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 12:21, wrote: > > Am 27.08.2024 12:07 schrieb Roberto A. Foglietta: > > As long as it is a separate file. Instead, it is converted into a > > bitmap data structure and embedded into the code, that is a derivative > > work and can make a difference. IMHO. > > > > Just a corne

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:58:02 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > A logo is not a software. A logo displayed into a software does not > change the nature of the work, as free software. This point of view matches the policy of most non-Debian distributions (for example Arch and Fedora), and I pe

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

Am 27.08.2024 11:58 schrieb Roberto A. Foglietta: On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:34, Simon McVittie wrote: If your goal is to prevent your project name or logo from being used in ways that would be misleading to users/consumers (for example "passing off" an extensively modified version of your soft

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

Am 27.08.2024 12:07 schrieb Roberto A. Foglietta: As long as it is a separate file. Instead, it is converted into a bitmap data structure and embedded into the code, that is a derivative work and can make a difference. IMHO. Just a corner case, but written for sake of completeness. That brings

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:58, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > A logo is not a software. A logo displayed into a software does not > change the nature of the work, as free software. As long as it is a separate file. Instead, it is converted into a bitmap data structure and embedded into the code, t

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:34, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 10:50:57 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 10:45, wrote: > > > We plan to have our own logo and thinking about how to license this. It > > > might come to the case that the logo file (e.g. l

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 11:20, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Trying to achieve this with copyright alone will be awkward, because > copyright is the wrong tool for this. Instead, you may want to consider > registering a trademark for your logo. This would give you control > over its use, while at the s

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

Dear Simon, thank you for your reply and thoughts. What confuses me is that there are two relationships: 1) Between the logo author and the project 2) and between the project and the rest of the world. I am not sure how to solve it. A trademark is not an option for our project because of mon

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 10:50:57 +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 10:45, wrote: > > We plan to have our own logo and thinking about how to license this. It > > might come to the case that the logo file (e.g. logo.svg, logo.png, > > logo.ico) won't be licensed with an OSI

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

Hello Roberto, I think what confuses me is that there are two relationships. One is between the logo author and the project. And the other is between the project and their users or the rest of the world. Am 27.08.2024 10:50 schrieb Roberto A. Foglietta: Reasonable. Then CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 is yo

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024, c buhtz wrote: > I am an upstream maintainer of a GPL-v2-or-later project. > We plan to have our own logo and thinking about how to license this. > It might come to the case that the logo file (e.g. logo.svg, logo.png, > logo.ico) won't be licensed with an OSI accepted

Re: None FLOSS license for a logo?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 10:45, wrote: > > Hello, > > I am an upstream maintainer of a GPL-v2-or-later project. > > We plan to have our own logo and thinking about how to license this. It > might come to the case that the logo file (e.g. logo.svg, logo.png, > logo.ico) won't be licensed with an OSI

None FLOSS license for a logo?

Hello, I am an upstream maintainer of a GPL-v2-or-later project. We plan to have our own logo and thinking about how to license this. It might come to the case that the logo file (e.g. logo.svg, logo.png, logo.ico) won't be licensed with an OSI accepted licence but with a more closed license.