Re: Debian logo & its license
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
> license.
I very much dislike the current license. I'm a debian developer, I'd
like to put the debian logo on my home page, but I do *not* necessarily
want to devote half or more of my home page to debian. I'd rather have
pointers to the debian web site, and let debian speak for itself.
Current (expired) license forbids this.
I've previously raised issues about using the logo inside of packages
too -- this one may be addressed by the current license, but it's
certainly not clear.
The logo should be a logo, it should be used to refer to or to advertise
debian. It should *mean* debian. The current license isn't even
*close* to filling this goal, imo.
I asked on IRC about the logo license, and was basically told, "nobody
cares, if we ignore the problem it will go away." A deplorable
attitude, IMO, license issues are at the core of what debian is all
about.
The thread on -legal ends with a comment that we should take this up
after revising the dfsg. I disagree *strongly*. We have free software
guidelines -- some of us even feel that the ones we have are much better
than any of the proposals so far. We *don't* have a reasonable license
for the logo. It may not be quite as critical, but I feel it's more
urgent at the moment.
Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free
logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-)
cheers
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: