[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Regarding the logo legality stuff

>> Permission for a specific use is not enough to satisfy DFSG §6.
>> Permission for Debian alone is not enough to satisfy DFSG §7 and §8.
>> Yes, this makes it problematic to both hold a trademark on a work and
>> grant license that satisfies DFSG.
> 0. DFSG
> So, an official logo or trademark is considered software, and
> therefore subject to DFSG?
> 6, 7, 8: Is a official logo or tradmark considered a "program"? All
> three of these seem to only apply to "programs"

So, I've read through most of the older email trails regarding this
issue. Back to 2001 or 2002 I think some of them went. And the gist of
the argument seemed to be that *everything* in main is completely free
to be used by anyone for any purpose.

Kind of like if I give you a photo of me and say use it for whatever
you want, and because I'm wearing Levi's jeans you suddenly can do
whatever you want with the Levi's logo. So I have to be careful to
blur the logo or else not wear pants in the photo I give you. If
that's the argument I think I understand it. But I also think it may
be flawed.

"The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software "[1]

So, let's say we use the official logo is as a background wallpaper to
the GDM greeter. That is a Debian component, but it doesn't restrict
anyone from selling the software, because it is not itself software,
it is a trademark.

"Trademark law protects the name of the software, not the software itself."[2]

"trademark n. a distinctive design, picture, emblem, logo or wording
(or combination) affixed to goods for sale to identify the
manufacturer as the source of the product and to distinguish them from
goods sold or made by others." [3]

It looks like this was discussed by Debian Legal some time ago [4],
where the idea was:
"The reason I'm worried is because the copyright holder is the
same entity as the trademark holder. That is a special case.
If I give you an image and you turn it into a sign that's
confusingly similar to Red Hat's logo, you can't argue I gave
you permission to do that. But if I *am* Red Hat and let you
"do whatever you want", you *can* argue that."[5]

But DFSG doesn't give you the image to do whatever you want with, it
only gives you the software and programs to 'do whatever you
want with'

Bah.. at this point I don't even care anymore. How anyone could want
to be a lawyer is beyond me. I have a headache after one hour of this
nonsense. I'll send the email, but only because if I don't then I''ll
have wasted to an even greater degree an hour of my life. In any case,
I at least understand a bit better why Debian can't use Debian logos
in its Debian distributions distributed by Debian on CD's with a
Debian logo. <insert Xzibit image here>

[1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines
[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Software
[3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trademark
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00071.html
[5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00111.html

Reply to: