Debian Official Use Logo is packaged in desktop-base
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:06:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Having said that, though, I will not argue further over the definition
> of software. You will not change my mind, and I doubt I will change
> yours. I also do not think it is so important: As long as the DFSG
> refers to packaged/distributed data in general, whether certain bits
> are software or not is a moot question.
I agree; the SC as it is now (post GR) makes this clear, regardless of
whether it did before.
> > I've seen several people, particularly on debian-legal, suggest that
> > documentation should have different standards of freedom than programs,
> > requests for a "DFDG", and so on. (If I remember correctly, RMS was
> > among them.) I've yet to see any interesting arguments in favor of this.
> >
> > If you have one, I'd like to hear it.
>
> Not documentation, but similar:
>
> I agree that important parts of packages need the same freedoms that
> Debian enumerates in the DFSG; although knowing computer people, if
> that were the standard, there would be many arguments/flame wars over
> what is "important." If freedoms should apply equally to all parts,
> though, we should file a bug against the desktop-base package
> regarding a non-free file in it. Specifically,
> /usr/share/pixmaps/debian-official-logo-small.png.
>
> Debian significantly restricts use (not just modification or
> redistribution) of what is in that file. There is no question that
> the rules for the official use logo fail the DFSG. The only way I can
> see for Debian to follow its SC is to not include its own official use
> logo.
>
> Silly? I think so, but I am trying to apply your argument to a place
> you might not have thought of.
On the contrary: I've taken (a miniscule) part in discussions about the
Official Use logo in the past.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00081.html
The Official Use logo is not under DFSG-free terms, and by my understanding,
it isn't intended to be. It is not allowed in the Debian archive. I don't
believe this is silly, bizarre or hypocritical.
debian-legal: Have there been any new conclusions about the Official Use logo
that I'm forgetting, or should a bug be filed against desktop-base?
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: