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

Re: Should the Debian Open Use Logo License be removed from main



On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 01:39:34PM -0400, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >>>This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
> >>>meet the DFSG test?
> >>
> >>No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the
> >>Debian distribution.
> >
> >True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
> >to refer to the project, and it doesn't allow explicitly other uses.
> 
> My "gdm" logon screen has the swirl, as did my default gnome background
> when I installed it (very long ago).  I did not use any package not
> in main to do so, therefore I think there are swirls sitting around in main.
> 
> Will somebody fill a bug about it?  (I do not have time to investigate
> and find the exact package containing the logo).

Note the (potentially important) point that there are *two* logos, with
different meanings, and with difference licenses.

The official logo should *not* be in the distribution proper, as it
cannot have a Free license and still serve it's purpose, most likely.
Any appearance of it is a fairly serious bug, at the moment.

The unofficial logo (which I see reproduced in many places; linuxlogo,
for example) is a matter of more debate (as to whether it's license is,
or should be, Free). Frankly, I think we need at least one logo that does
have a Free license, simply so that we CAN have a logo that's safe to ship
in main. Whether the current one meets that, or should be changed to meet
it, or some other option fixes it, I think it's something we will need to
resolve.
-- 
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter                                        : :' :
                                                                     `. `'
				                                       `-

Attachment: pgpiSuYWXuTjF.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: