Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes: >>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>>Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes: >>>>Ken Arromdee wrote: >>>>>Why can't Debian do the same thing that is done with US export licenses? >>>>>Don't put restrictions on use of the logo bitmap, but say "note that this >>>>>does not excuse you from obeying the law, which prohibits you from using the >>>>>trademark to identify your product..." >>>>> >>>>>Just make it clear that the license allows use of the logo in the sense that a >>>>>user of the logo won't be sued for copyright violation, and does not address >>>>>other reasons why someone might not be allowed to use the logo. >>>> >>>>This would leave the logo clearly non-free; the DFSG does not only cover >>>>copyright-based restrictions on Freedom. >>> >>>"Cover," "Freedom," "Leave," and any use of the phrase "clear logo" >>>are trademarks of their respective owners, so this mail message cannot >>>be distributed in Debian. >> >>Fortunately, that's impossible, as you can't trademark generic words >>such as those. > > ... which is why Apple Music is currently involved in a suit with > Apple Computer over their trademarks on the term Apple in the music > recording business? And there's a successful company with a trademark > on the common word "Ford"? > > You certainly can trademark generic words. They receive a lesser > level of protection than clearly original, otherwise meaningless > phrases. But they do have protection, particularly if they have a > history of use in that domain. So the Ford Motor Company's trademarks > on "Ford" and the script-Ford logo are both very strong. > > I can't sell a car under the name "Ford," even if it is made > especially for crossing rivers without bridges. Point granted. :) >>Furthermore, I think it has been acknowledged in the past that the >>contents of the mailing-list archive could probably not be included in >>the distribution. > > Well, sure. This was just meant as an example of how your definition > of freedom which excludes any works containing trademarked items, or > which cannot be transformed into works containing trademarked items, > is too narrow. Please note that I did not say that a work is non-free if it can be transformed to contain a trademarked item, any more than a work is non-free if it can be transformed to contain a copyrighted work to which we don't have a Free license, such as the source code to Microsoft(TM) Windows(TM). :) I am only concerned with whether a given work, and all derived works of that work, have permission to use the trademark. >>>See how silly this gets? A trademark restriction isn't an aspect of a >>>work, and it's not a good idea to trace chains of works to look for >>>trademarks. A trademark right is to a pairing of an idea and a domain, >> >>s/idea/phrase or other identifying mark/ there, I sincerely hope. > > No. I can't sell carbonated corn syrup as Coco-Cola, or in a red can > with a swirl down the side, even if it's distinct from the Coca-cola > swirl logo. I have to avoid confusion. I'm being particularly > careful with this definition because I want to convince you that a > trademark right is not a property of a work, or a relation of a work > to its creator, but a property of a business in trade, and of its > relation to consumers. All I meant was that I certainly hope that "idea" is not the appropriate term, and that the "idea" of their brand is not what is trademarked. I was under the impression that, like a patent claim, one actually had to *state* the distinguishing characteristic is of your trademark, such as "the phrase Coca-Cola", or "a red color and swirlish logo" (along with a field of endeavor, such as "food and drink"). Or in other words, that while it isn't one particular expression of an idea (which copyright covers), it isn't "absolutely anything that brings to mind anything related to our cola", any more than a patent can be "anything that sorts a list of numbers" (rather than "our particular method of sorting, however you implement it", which is still far too broad, but...). Regardless, that was unrelated to the issue of free trademark licenses; it was just an idle speculation on the broadness of the relevant law. >>>while a copyright is to an expression of an idea. Debian's decision >>>to maintain its trademark rights in both the Open and restricted logos >>>seems perfectly defensible to me. [1] >> >>I have no problem with Debian using trademarks as well as copyrights to >>enforce its licenses. I *do* have a problem with those licenses being >>non-DFSG-free. > > That first sentence doesn't make sense to me. We don't use trademarks > or copyrights to enforce our licenses. We grant licenses to the > copyrights and trademarks granted us by various governments. Those > licenses are granted to advance the goal of serving our users and free > software. That's a reasonable distinction to make. How about this then: I have no problem with Debian holding and licensing rights under both trademarks and copyrights that apply to Debian's works. I do have a problem with Debian not licensing those rights in a Free manner. Better? :) > In this case, the small harm to freedom from preventing confusing uses > of the Debian marks performs a great service to users. That may well be the case. If it is, then we have the other practical concern that we should not ship the Debian logo in the main distribution, and that we should go after all the various makers of wallpaper, splash screens, and other such works derived from the Debian logo. There are many such works. >>I find the idea of a Free copyright license paired with a non-free >>trademark license just as objectionable as a Free copyright license >>paired with a non-free patent license, or as a non-free copyright >>license. None grant the necessary rights to pass the DFSG. > > I don't think the trademarks here, or many patents, have anything to > do with the DFSG. They're features of a society, not of individual > works. > > Look at it this way: even without the Debian Logo being packaged into > Debian, nobody can make a swirl-from-a-bottle and use it to sell an > OS. I understand that, and I would agree with part of it: the DFSG does not apply to works not distributed in Debian or derived from works distributed in Debian. However, the DFSG _does_ apply to works distributed in Debian and works derived from those works. Therefore, if we want to ship the logo in main, we need to grant a DFSG-Free license to the logo itself and to derived works of the logo. >>Furthermore, one question to clarify your position on this issue: you >>keep saying phrases like "perfectly defensible" and similar; does that >>mean you find the licenses under discussion DFSG-free, or that you find >>them non-DFSG-free but that it is acceptable for that to be the case? > > Hm. I don't remember using that as a particular catchphrase, The relevant quote is contained in the message you replied to, as well as this one. I tagged it with the marker [1] in this message, if that helps. > but I > probably meant that the licenses are morally defensible, and that for > trademark licenses the DFSG really doesn't enter into it. I see. In that case, the other question would be: under such a license, would you consider it acceptable to distribute the logo in "main"? I would not. > For example, the word Stanford appears many times in /usr/share/doc. > Stanford is a trademark of Leland Stanford Jr. University. It's a > violation of their trademark to use it while providing educational or > research services. Should we remove that software, because it's not free? First of all, please ignore actual license texts for the sake of evaluating Freeness (and for the sake of our sanity). :) Second, that is a tricky issue, but the key point is that all the existing trademark references in the work are (or should be) legal under trademark law (since they actually refer to that which is trademarked). Furthermore, the existing trademark references in the work are (or should be) still legal if the work is modified or redistributed (they are not specific to the unmodified copy currently in Debian). Now, if the work was modified to add additional trademark references that were not legal, then that would be similar to modifying a work to infringe a new patent: the original was Free, and the derived work is not, but not due to any license under any right applicable to the original work. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature