Re: [URGENT] Logo license
>>>>> Wichert Akkerman writes:
WA> `liberal license'
WA> I. Can be used by everyone
WA> II. May not be used to advertise non-free products
I, personally, would like to see the `liberal' logo be at least as
free as verbatim copying without restriction. To me, it would suck if
Debian's only real logos prohibited use by non-free people.
That would be tantamount to the GNU Project making GNU trademarked,
and then refusing to allow anybody to use GNU(tm) to describe their
product unless it fit with certain guidelines.
Not even RMS has that little faith in people. It's been good enough
to allow the word to be used anywhere *legally*, but then just to
apply *social* pressure to get people to stop using the word for
inappropriate purposes.
Why not simply:
Copyright (C) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
Verbatim copying and distribution of this logo is permitted in any
medium, provided this notice is preserved.
If people want to do something other than verbatim copying, then that
can be handled on a case-by-case basis by SPI.
WA> `official license'
WA> I. may only be used if: a) the product it is used for is made
WA> using a documented procudere we make (for example official
WA> CD-creation) b) if we give approval for its use
WA> II. may be used if an official part of debian (decided using the
WA> rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear
WA> that only this part is officialy approved
WA> III. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product, if
WA> (some conditions here)
Sure, whatever. As long as the liberal version of the logo is at
least as free as verbatim copying, I don't have a serious problem with
any of these conditions for the official logo.
Having said that, my personal preference would be to simply say that
the `official license' cannot be used to advertise any non-free
software, and furthermore cannot be distributed with a CD unless that
CD is made via documented procedures.
Perhaps a special exception would be made to allow the inclusion of an
``official Debian non-free CD'' with such a CD set, but I'd prefer
that non-free never be branded as ``official''.
That's my opinion in a nutshell:
liberal: anybody can use this verbatim for whatever they want
official: cannot be used to promote any non-DFSG-free software, nor
for a CD set that wasn't burned via official procedures, otherwise you
can use this verbatim for whatever you want
So, the idea would be that somebody who made non-free software that
worked with Debian would only be able to use the `liberal' logo.
If you make free software, and you want to promote Debian, you can use
the `official' logo however you want, so long as it isn't in
conjunction with a non-official CD.
I feel morally uncomfortable about adding more legal restrictions than
that, unless there is a really, really good reason. I think any other
fine-grained restrictions can be accomplished via social pressure a la
RMS (and I paraphrase): ``Stop doing that. If you don't stop, I'll
send you another e-mail like this one once a day for the rest of your
life, write an essay about you, publish it widely, and generally
help many people to understand why you're a selfish bastard with no
concern for the GNU Project's real goals.''
Most people, if they're confronted with that, honour RMS's wishes
quickly. The people who don't are usually the ones who wouldn't
misuse the word GNU in the first place.
I think that with over 400 developers, social pressure could be even
more effective, requiring legal restrictions only for the most blatant
abusers.
If you're paranoid, add a clause saying that we reserve the right to
change the official logo's license retroactively in order to prevent
it from being used to undermine the Debian project.
--
Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@fig.org> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/)
Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)
Reply to: