On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:28:55 +0000 John Halton wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:12:53PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Wait, wait! Debian's own policy is not satisfactory! At least, I > > don't consider it to be satisfactory (or DFSG-free), and other > > people seem to agree with me that it should be changed. > > I'm aware that the licensing position regarding the Debian logos is > subject to ongoing discussion. However, pending a change of official > position it still seems reasonable for packages within Debian to adopt > the same policy. I don't agree: the current Debian logo licensing has been considered as buggy. I haven't filed serious bugs against packages in main including Debian logos, since I knew that the issue was being worked on. I think that probably other people have refrained from filing serious bugs for similar reasons. But anyway, the situation is buggy. I would rather avoid suggesting other people to introduce more bugs, just because there already are similar bugs which are not fixed yet... [...] > To put it another way: whatever one thinks of the Debian logo policy, > it seems harsh on OP to make him comply with a stricter interpretation > of the DFSG than the Debian project currently applies to its own logo. I don't think that the Debian Project is currently claiming that the Debian logos comply with the DFSG. Quite the opposite, I would say. Their failure to comply with the DFSG is one of the primary reasons for the need to change their licensing! > > > Please see the following threads, for the gory details: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00013.html > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00071.html > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00206.html > > Thanks for the links. You're welcome. > The interaction between copyright and trade > marks is not straightforward, especially when dealing with logos and > other images. I don't think any of the specific queries regarding the > Debian logo (etc.) can be answered without a broader decision on how > to handle trade mark rights in a free software context. This is one of the reasons why the issue is being worked on so slowly, IMHO. There's a lot of headscratching when it comes to understanding the interaction between copyrights, trade marks, and the DFSG... I think that, in many ways, the help of a real lawyer (like you!) would have been valuable during those past discussions. > > But this is taking us OT. Off topic? Why? Just because the thread was about another logo? Change the Subject:, and everything is fine for debian-legal, IMHO. I've just done so. > As I said above, from the point of view of > OP's query, the fairest approach would seem to be to say, "Drop the > 'clothing clause' and this should be fine for now, but bear in mind > the policy may change in the future". As I said, this would be suggesting something that is known to be bad. I do not like doing so. Once again: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpaYeStNeGoO.pgp
Description: PGP signature