Matthew Garrett wrote: > Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote: >>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict >>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions. > > Trademark law limits what can be done here. Granting a trademark license > (explicitly or implicitly) that allows people to use the trademark for > any purpose is likely to result in the loss of the trademark. The > trademark license would only apply in cases where there /is/ a potential > trademark issue - in all other cases, copyright law would already apply. > > Granting the right to use and modify an image of a trademark without > providing a license to use the trademark would be more restrictive than > the licenses suggested above, but is something that I don't think we've > really considered in the past. First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested licenses were very clearly non-DFSG-free. Second, I'm not suggesting that we put no restrictions on the logo. I would suggest that we require people who copy, modify, or distribute the logo to acknowledge the origin of the logo, and not misrepresent it as being written by them. We should probably also include a copyleft. Such restrictions would be DFSG-free, and probably GPL-compatible for that matter. I also believe such a restriction, if actually enforced, ought to be sufficient to maintain a trademark. (IANAL, hence "ought to be".) Third, if we want a logo with a restrictive license, there is always the Official Use logo. (I dislike the idea that any of Debian's logos would be non-DFSG-free, however.) - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature