Re: Debian logo license still not resolved
Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>
> How about:
> * We require that people acknowledge the use of our trademark,
> quoting `Debian penguin logo automatic licence version 1' and the date.
> * The licence gives permission only for the year following the date
> quoted.
>
> Then if we want to change the licence we publish version 2 instead,
> leaving version 1 available but stating that it is no longer
> available. Users of the logo have to go and check each year that the
> licence hasn't changed, and update the date on their acknowledgement.
As stated by Will Lowe, I think a registration process could handle
this (i.e. re-register annually under the current license terms).
>
> Draft text below.
>
> There are a number of unresolved questions:
> * Do we want a separate logo and licence for `powered by Debian'?
I think the licese should be the same in the least.
> * What about hardware manufacturers who preinstall Debian ? Do we
> just let them mail us ?
Again, see Will's registration suggestion.
>
> Ian.
>
Now I'll play lawyer, but we should really have a real one handle
the language of this.
> 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:
>
This shouldn't be a numbered cluase since every other clause listed
is soley relevant to "Grant" (at least as currently worded). The
rest of the numbering should of course be adjusted to reflect this.
> 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').
> 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.
> 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.
I think this is bogus. People can't put the Debian logo on a web
page unless half of the page is dedicated to debian? How about
changing this to "the content must be substantially derived from, or
directly referential to 'the Distribution', and in accordance with
this license."
>
> 4. Defamation
> You must not intend to defame Software in the Public Interest or
> the Distribution.
This should read "must not" instead of "must not intend", and should
be tied into the indemnity clause. There might also be a mention of
remedies available in the event of breach, but a professional would
know better. I think that there should also be a statement limiting
this cluase to the use of the logo, since that's what we're
licensing. Someone may defame SPI in an article in a pubication,
and use the logo in an advertisement in the same publication. As
long the defemation doesn't occur or isn't directly associated with
the use of the logo. Its a bit too fascist as stated above.
>
> 5. Termination
A general point here, as with cluase 4, it may be prudent to state
some method of remedying a breach up front (to save SPI legal costs
later). One such remedy could be described and referred to by both
clauses that allowed a breach condition to be remedied within 30
days by some agreeable means lest other remedies apply. The
friendlier we are here, the better in my view. We are talking about
freedom after all. There might also be a default dispute resolution
procedure that makes it easy for offendors to state there case and
clear the breach.
> 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.
I'm not sure what this means, and that probably means some other
people won't know either. This should be restated so its more
clear.
> 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.
This sounds a bit harsh. How about a longer lead time than
"immeadiately" and changing the notification to include "or as
announced on our public mailing list, or publish on our web site"
and getting rid of "convenient" since that has nothing to do with
ones obilgation under law. I also think the distribution shouldn't
be limited since the publishing states the duration of the license
along side the logo (as required by this license). If I print two
thousand books and sell 1500, then two years later, a school wants
new books, I shouldn't have to re-publish just because the license
changed (from a commercial standpoint).
> 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.
This should be expanded by a professional to indemnify SPI against
_any_ law suit, frivolous or otherwise, that results from the use of
the logo. It should also include indemnification against SPI's name
and reputation through some means in the event the license holder is
sued in relation to the use of the logo (even if SPI is not sued
directly). Most intellectual property lawyers would probably have
some standard language for this.
>
> If the rights granted by this license are not appropriate for your
> product, you are encouraged to contact SPI to negotiate an individual
> license.
>
Anyway, that's my completely non-professional 2 cents. A
professional opinion should be sought, however. A mention of the
jurisdiction of law under which the license is granted should also
be made.
Cheers,
Richard
--
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: