Re: Debian logo license still not resolved
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> There are a number of unresolved questions:
> * Do we want a separate logo and licence for `powered by Debian' ?
Considering the time it has taken to come to closure on the first one, I
would not recommend it. 'Powered by Debian' or any other marketing slogan
containing the name Debian, when approved should *require* "The Debian
Logo" appear on all product materials that meet the criterion "contains
Debian".
> * What about hardware manufacturers who preinstall Debian ? Do we
> just let them mail us ?
>
If they supply an "Official" CD set with the machine they should be able
to use both the "Official" title and the Debian name as long as they are
associated with "The Debian Logo".
I guess, over all, this means I favor a single logo.
> Ian.
>
> DEBIAN PENGUIN LOGO AUTOMATIC LICENSE
>
> The Debian Penguin Logo is a Trademark of Software in the Public
> Interest, Inc (`SPI').
>
> 1. Grant
> You are hereby granted a license to use the trademark on a
> software or informational product or a service, and in advertising
> and promotion of such products and services, provided that:
>
> 2. Term
> 2.1. You must acknowledge the trademark, stating that it is used
> under licence and giving today's date (the date of issue of the
> licence), alongside the trademark itself.
> 2.2. Your licence expires one year from the date of issue.
>
> 3. Composition of your product or service
> 3.1. In the case of a software product, at least half of the product
> must be derived from the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution
> (`the Distribution').
Measured by weight?
Several reasonable measures present themselves...total bytes, number of
packages...but it seems to me that the critical issue is whether or not
the Debian components, together, make a "reasonable" OS base for the
product. A "standard" system is easy to define (all packages with priority
"standard" or higher are installed) and should probably be the minimum
system we should allow to be associated with the Debian name. After that
point, what concern is it of ours how large the chunk of "value added"
software is? Even a Debian archive, trimmed down to standard and above
will take most of a CD to provide both the binaries and the source. Why
should we restrict the number of other, full, CDs that the reseller wants
to add to the product? What is wrong with having "Powered by Debian" at
the top of a long list of "Product Names"?
> 3.2. In the case of an informational product, such as a book or a set
> of web pages, at least half of the content matter must be
> related to the Distribution.
While the question of a suitable measure isn't at issue here (pages seems
the obvious one) the question of half should be reduced to "equal share".
For instance consider a book on Debian, Red Hat, and Slackware. It would
seem quite fair to me for the Debian section to only contain 33 1/3% of
the total volume of the book.
Minor question here. Does a "bad review" in such a book constitute
"intent to defame SPI"?
> 3.3. In the case of a service, at least one half of the practice of
> the service must be related to the use of the Distribution.
>
Same problem as the book, with an additional issue:
Consider a service that does tech support for both Debian and Red Hat (I
will not make the math worse by adding Slackware. It is unnecessary for
this example). Must they agree to provide "equal" service in these two
areas? That is, if the Red Hat calls exceed the Debian ones, will the
service provider be able to both answer those questions and keep his
Debian certification as well? That isn't apparent from this wording.
> 4. Defamation
> You must not intend to defame Software in the Public Interest or
> the Distribution.
>
Seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess spelling it out makes the legal
issues easier.
> 5. Termination
I have no problems with the rest of this, asside from the fact that it
appears both aggressive and abrupt in its treatment of the entity using
the license. (BTW, my dictionary declares the spelling to be "license". Is
this just a British/American difference in spelling?)
> 5.1. This automatic licence must not have been withdrawn (on or
> before the day of issue) for new licencing by a notice published
> alongside it by SPI.
> 5.2. Your licence may be terminated by SPI at any time, for any
> reason, by giving you notice via email or other convenient
> means. In this case, you will immediately cease to use the
> trademark, except that you may continue until no longer than one
> year from the date of issue to distribute any pre-existing
> inventory of a physical medium (such as a book or CD, or
> advertising that has already been printed) containing the logo.
> 5.3. You must not have been given notice (on or before the date of
> issue) by SPI that this automatic licence is not available to you.
>
> 6. Indemnity
> In the event of a legal dispute between you and SPI, you agree to
> indemnify SPI against any legal fees and penalties.
>
> If the rights granted by this license are not appropriate for your
> product, you are encouraged to contact SPI to negotiate an individual
> license.
>
>
> --
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
> debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
> Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
>
>
>
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: