[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal - Free the Debian Open Use logo

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 04:48:59PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-10-06 15:46:01 +0100 Eric Sharkey <sharkey@netrics.com> wrote:

> >However, if you look at the logo as a component of Debian as a whole,
> >and consider derived works of the logo to be derived works of Debian,

> Surely the logo is a work on its own, as well as part of the greater 
> "Debian" work?

A logo is a graphical equivalent of a name.  If I have (and I do) a
BSDish licensed program that pops up a banner saying (among other
things) "Sun Microsystems", you have the right to remove that banner,
but not the right to use the name "Sun Microsystems" for your own
company.  The use of a trademarked logo (whether Debian's or someone
else's) can very reasonably follow the same rules.

> >and invoke the exception of clause 4 to allow Debian to require 
> >derived works to carry a diffent name (and by extension, logo),
> > then it fits even the letter of the DFSG.

> This seems a large and dubious extension of reasoning to me.

Seems like Eric hit the nail right on the head to me.  I think if you
look, you'll find a bunch of logos here and there in Debian (the
Apache Foundation's logo, for example).  I hope you're not going to
argue that we need to purge all logos from our system!

> >The spirit of the clause 4 exception is [...]

> Can you give a reference that supports your interpretation?  I am not 
> convinced that trademarking in this way is really the spirit of the 
> fourth guideline.

I think we have two choices: either accept that a logo is equivalent
to a name and move on, or declare that logos are magically different
from names because they're graphical, and start a witch-hunt to purge
all "evil" logos (like the apache logo) from Debian.  I think you can
probably guess which one *I* think is more sane.  :)

Do you want to advance an argument that would allow us to keep
shipping the Apache logo (and perhaps others, such as the FSF's logo
or Sun's logo), but not our own?  I'll listen, but I'm not holding my
breath. :)

> Furthermore, I don't think it benefits anyone to waste scarce effort
> on enforcing the requirement that all derived works of the Open Use
> Logo to only be used for Debian references.

Now you're changing the subject. You're also engaging in the logical
fallacy, "Affirmation of the Consequent"


We may want to change the license - that's a separate argument.  The
question before us, though, is, do we NEED to change the license
because it violates the DFSG?  And I think the answer has to be a
resounding NO!  

Now, if you want to ask, should we change the logo license because
it'll make our lives easier, I'll answer with a qualified maybe.  I'll
argue that a logo is equivalent to a name, and therefore it benefits
us just as much to protect our logo as it does to protect our name.
However, I'll admit that we could change the image from being a logo
to being a random glyph we just *happen* to put on all of our
webpages.  But if it doesn't _mean_ "Debian", then I don't think we
can really call it a logo any more.  I think we have to start calling
it "a random glyph we just happen to have on all of our web pages".
But I don't really have a problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is the argument that the presence of an
actual logo (or other mark, e.g. an actual name), whether ours or
someone else's, constitutes a violation of the DFSG.

Chris Waters           |  Pneumonoultra-        osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org       |  microscopicsilico-    to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net |  volcaniconi-          standalone haiku

Reply to: