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

Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@debian.org> wrote:

> please keep the Cc: on any replies.

> > When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the
> > entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently
> > interpreted it this way.
> For documentation I can still understand the reasoning but a logo?
> A logo in order to be a a logo has to be very strictly defined.  A long
> time ago I used to work for Merrill Lynch.  They had a thick book of
> guidelines about how the logo could be used.  In fact everytime we did a
> website the logo usage had to cleared by lawyers.  A comparison can be
> made to a license.  Just because the GPL says "Everyone is permitted to
> copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing
> it is not allowed." does that make any packages containing it non-free?
> It is totally legitimate for the Debian logo to be much more restricted
> than software or even documentation.

Right, but that's not the issue.  It isn't whether the logo license
allows its use in Debian packages, it whether main allows non-free
logos.  Current concensus says it does not.  Everything in main should
be free.
> > I'm not discussing the legality of your distribution of the official
> > logo, merely the fact that the offical logo is not free.
> >
> So make it free then (If you don't find my argument above persuasive.)
> Unlike the GNU documentation case (where I note we are exercising a lot of
> patience before chucking things out) we control the logo and its license.
> I don't think any GR or anything would be necessary either.  In fact
> probably anyone with CVS access to the web pages could do it.
> I think its the height of absurdity that Debian can't even use its own
> logo in its own packages.  I'd like to see that fixed.

Work is progressing on making the unofficial logo DSFG-compliant.
Then you will be able to use that one instead.


Reply to: