Re: [URGENT] Logo license
Christian Leutloff wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > `liberal license'
> > =================
> > I. Can be used by everyone
> > II. May not be used to advertise non-free products
> Why shouldn't a commercial company says "Yes it runs with Debian" or
> "It's a Debian based product" and use the Debian logo for this
You mean proprietary? (There's certainly no reason why a commercial
company that produces *free* software couldn't use it.) But I agree --
if someone wants to sell a proprietary product based on Debian (which is
fine as long as they provide the source to all the parts they're legally
required to provide source for), we shouldn't force them to sort through
the system, find all occurances of the logo, and purge them.
> IMHO a liberal licence would be
> I. Can be used for any purpuse by everyone
> II. but modification is prohibited
If modification is prohibited, then it can't be converted to a "Yes it
runs with Debian" logo, since that would be modification.
My original suggestion was that we allow it to be used in Debian or to
refer to Debian, period. I still think that works better than any of
the other suggestions I've seen. That's essentially the definition of a
trademark, and, if we're not going to make the logo an official
trademark, then I think we should license it *as if* it were a
Chris Waters email@example.com | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or firstname.lastname@example.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.