Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-22 23:22:45 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
>> A trademark license *has* to prohibit such things. Prohibiting
>> misrepresenting the origin of the *logo* doesn't suffice. We have to
>> require that the logo, and anything "confusingly similar", is not
>> used to
>> identify things which aren't Debian.
> Aren't the debian trademarks restricted to a specified scope? As I
> understand English law: if debian is a computing-related trademark,
> its licence should not forbid use of the debian logo for a distributor
> of replacement body parts, for example, because that is far beyond
> what the trademark gives. I think forgetting that is the root of
> trying to use copyright law to create "supertrademarks".
Right, good point. :-) Sorry my proposed license didn't take that into
account; I agree that it should have. I don't have much experience with
designing trademark licenses, as you can tell. Having a trademark license
(one which is not a contract and doesn't require the agreement of the
recipient) would prevent any accidental overreaching, because a grant of
permission to use the trademark simply can't restrict anything which isn't
covered by trademark.
Why don't we simply start with a permissive copyright license,
and a statement like this:
"This copyright license does not grant a trademark license.
"The Debian Open Use Logo is a trademark of the Debian Project. The Debian
Project is still trying to decide on trademark policy. We hope we will
have a better trademark license for you soon. In the meantime, the Debian
Open Use Logo trademark may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian
project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. Anyone is, of
course, also permitted to use the logo in any way which conforms to the
copyright license and does not infringe on Debian's trademark rights."
(a) be a structural improvement over the present condition, and clarify that
Debian is not trying to create "para-trademark"
(b) would permit more than is currently permitted
(c) would not prevent any of the future options for trademark handling,
which appear to still be contentious
I believe we have actual consensus that we *don't* want to retain the
current restrictive copyright license, and that any trademark license
should be a separate item, and that we don't want to enforce a
"para-trademark" using copyright law. So maybe we can carry this part out,
and worry about the other part (what to do with the trademark) after?
This would at least be a start.
This space intentionally left blank.