Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net>: >>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. > > Does it qualify as DFSG-free if you give it a free copyright licence > without granting any kind of trademark licence? No, I don't believe it does. The DFSG is not specific to copyright-based restrictions, and the default restrictions on trademarks seem to be too strict for Freedom, since they would restrict the use of the logo. > If it doesn't, what exactly are the situations in which a trademark > licence is required in addition to a copyright licence? This is a difficult question, and one that does not commonly come up, since trademarked terms seem to be relatively rare in Free works. The easy but unhelpful answer is "any time the lack of a trademark license would make the work DFSG-non-free". :) This doesn't help too much, though, as it begs the question. I think it is the right policy, though: use the DFSG universally, regardless of which law is being used to grant rights or place restrictions, and apply it to the resulting set of rights to the work. As an mildly-related aside: what is the policy on short snippets of material, presumably included under some variant of Fair Use? I know of one package (fillets-ng) which contains a very brief clip (about a second, I think) constructed from a couple of images from "The Simpsons". - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature