Re: Debian logo & its license
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 01:42:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply
> > > with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical.
>
> James A. Treacy <treacy@debian.org> wrote:
> > Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines.
>
> You're trying to make a distinction between code and data, here?
> That doesn't work for the general case.
>
> > A logo is not software.
>
> I'm not sure you're working with a viable definition of software.
>
I hope that you are not trying to argue that there is no difference between
a program and a logo. This is clearly ridiculous.
We seem to have a number of people talking past each other. One group want a
logo with a relatively free license for uses such as web pages. This is perfectly
reasonable. Another group of people are interested in a logo which is used for
advertising products with the Debian name on it. Many people (me included), feel
we need a more restrictive license on such a logo so that we may protect the name
of Debian. We need to protect ourselves from abuse of such a logo as it may be
used in ways that reflect badly on Debian. An example is some of the poor quality
CDs that have been released with the name Debian on them.
This is why I suggested that we have two logos.
Just to make sure no one is advocating this, the GPL is not a particularly good
license for licensing things such as logos and documentation. Read the archives
for the many discussions about this.
The existence of this discussion, which is at least the 10th time it has been
discussed, clearly indicates that we need to vote on this issue. A clear vote
with some archives to point people to in the future should keep us from rehashing
this every few months. There are much more important things for us to be doing.
Jay Treacy
Reply to: