Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes: >>Nathanael Nerode wrote: >>>Josh Triplett wrote: >>>>Nathanael Nerode wrote: >>>>>Josh Triplett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict >>>>>>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions. >>>>> >>>>>Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works, >>>>>projects, and organizations as belonging to/being endorsed by/being part >>>>>of Debian. >>>>> >>>>>That's a standard, acceptable class of restrictions, isn't it? This >>>>>really *is* about misrepresentation and nothing more. >>>> >>>>If that is truly the case, then you don't need to say that at all in the >>>>license. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00540.html >>>>and the resulting thread. Claiming endorsement by someone else without >>>>their permission is already illegal. >>> >>>That's for a *person*, whose name has its own rules. Organizations, >>>particularly unincorporated organizations (corporations are often >>>considered "people" by the law), are sometimes different. >> >>Interesting. I'm certainly not a person who would argue for extending >>the rights of people to organizations and corporations. :) But in this >>narrow case, it seems more than reasonable that the law should prohibit >>saying "Endorsed by Debian" if that is not the case. If this is not >>true, I would be quite surprised. > > That's called a trademark. Certainly, the implicit form of it is. I was referrring more to the legal "right of publicity" mentioned in the message I referenced. > You're advocating that Debian surrender its trademark rights. In > other words, if we "free" the Debian trademarks as you suggest, then > we will in no sense *be* the Debian who has the right to sue about > others claiming that something is Endorsed by Debian. I am advocating no such thing. I am simply advocating that we provide a DFSG-Free license, under whatever rights we hold. If you don't think the "right of publicity" applies here, then why not use the clause from the three-clause BSD license, which would explicitly prohibit claiming endorsement or promotion by Debian without permission. That clause I would have no problem with. For that matter, requiring that you explictly acknowledge the origin of the logo and disclaim such endorsement or promotion would probably be DFSG-Free as well, although probably GPL-incompatible, which would cause various practical problems. The idea that you could not use the logo at all except to refer to Debian, even if you did not claim any such endorsement or promotion, is far stricter. >>>We also want to prevent "accidental" misrepresentation where someone else >>>"just happens to" use the same name (Debian) or logo (swirl) for their >>>proprietary software company. That's not actually claiming endorsement; >>>they're just attempting to confuse people without actually making a claim; >>>but it is common-law trademark infringement. This is a branding issue >>>vaguely akin to requiring name changes for forks. >> >>That's a much broader restriction. Prohibiting false endorsement seems >>quite reasonable, whether or not they use the Debian logo. Prohibiting >>all uses of the logo that don't refer to Debian is far broader, and in >>my opinion clearly in non-free territory. > > You are not responding to what was said. He said he wanted to prevent > accidental misrepresentation, confusing people by using the Debian > logo for other software products. If somebody wishes to produce a car > or a dogfood product using the Swirl logo, that's presumably fine. I understood that perfectly, and that was what I was responding to. It does not matter whether people are prohibited from using the logo for any non-Debian purpose, or just for non-Debian software products; it would still be non-DFSG-free, because it would fail DFSG6: > No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program > in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the > program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic > research. How could prohibiting use of the logo for non-Debian software products pass this? For that matter, if we allowed it into the distribution under such a license, we would furthermore be violating DFSG8: > License Must Not Be Specific to Debian > > The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's > being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from > Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within > the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program > is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are > granted in conjunction with the Debian system. >>>Under US trademark law, if some unrelated company sets up as "Debian >>>Computing" and proceeds to operate as such, with Debian's knowledge, and >>>Debian does not try to stop it, Debian will lose its trademark in the name >>>"Debian", and the company will be able to go on using its name forever. Is >>>this desirable? I assumed not. Is preventing this Free? I assumed yes. >> >>I believe the answer would be "no, preventing that use of the logo is >>not Free". If the logo cannot be used, unmodified, to refer to anything >>but Debian, that seems blatantly non-free. >> >>Now, whether we want to permit some business to actually _call >>themselves_ "Debian Computing" is independent of whether we make the >>logo license Free. I find the idea of restricting such naming far less >>objectionable. > > Why is the textual name allowed to be less free than the graphical name? (Note that I just said that *I* find it less objectionable. I don't know what Debian's policy should be on that; I was just stating my opinion.) I find it less objectionable for one reason and one reason only: consistency with DFSG4. We explicitly allow something similar in DFSG4, with the phrase "The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.". This is not exactly applicable here, since it is difficult to argue that the word "Debian" is a derived work of the word "Debian" (it's the _same_ work), but it is similar in spirit. On the other hand, DFSG4 does not permit licenses that say "you must change the logo", or for that matter "you must systematically change every reference to the name throughout the software". It only says that the software can be required to carry a different name. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature