Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > We allow others to specify that if their work is modified, the > modifier must change the name. We try to narrowly tailor such clauses > when they're proposed, but we do allow it. The logo is Debian's name > -- just not in English. It represents Debian just as much as the > word "Debian" does. So even by a copyright license, we'd allow others > to insist that their names or logos are changed. Insisting that the top-level name of your product be changed is one thing. Insisting that modifiers hunt down every reference to a logo and replace it is quite another. (Also, note the difference between the requirement to change a project name, which is free, and the requirement to change a file name, which is not. Recall the LPPL discussions.) > Alternately to issuing a license to use the trademark for > non-confusing purposes, Debian could issue no trademark license at > all. In that case, either Debian would lose its trademark rights, or > it would have to enforce the default trademark rights against those > who used the logo. Neither is free. The proposed license, I think, > is as free as you can make a trademark license. Remember that some > sorts of trademark license can cost the owner the trademark. I don't > think we want to push Debian or others towards those. First of all, "as free as you can make a trademark license" does not automatically equate to "DFSG-Free". Second, I think my suggested trademark license does include some restrictions on confusing uses: either refer to Debian or Debian products (or unofficial products clearly marked as such), or note that your logo is based on the Debian logo. This removes the possibility that someone could use the logo as the logo for another company with no reference to Debian. It is possible to license the use of a trademark to others without losing that trademark; Debian would simply be licensing it to _many_ others. > As to your proposed license: > >>* You may use modified versions of the logo under any of these >>circumstances, if you clearly and unambiguously identify the origin >>of the logo as being the Debian logo, and satisfy the requirements >>for using the unmodified logo above. > > I don't think that's Free. It may just be as un-free as a patch > clause, and so DFSG-free. But it means I can't make a new logo, no > matter how different, which includes a modified copy of the Debian > logo, no matter how distinct. Sure you can. You just need to note somewhere that your logo is based on the Debian logo, and not use the logo to imply false endorsement by or affiliation with Debian. That seems perfectly free to me. > I do think that "clearly and unambiguously" are either strict enough > to be non-free, or lawyer-bombs if it's argued that there's latitude > there. Does that require a message in the image? In multiple > languages? What I had in mind was not necessarily a message in the image, but more likely a brief footnote wherever the logo is used, or on a website, perhaps a single note with links from wherever the logo is used. Regardless, I don't want to be much more specific, because I think a requirement that tells you exactly what to say or how to say it would be non-free. Not everything that requires human judgement is a "lawyer-bomb". The wording "clearly and unambiguously" actually comes from the new, Free LPPL. > Also, you probably mean "imply any *false* endorsement *by* or > affiliation with Debian" Good point. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature