Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:18:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >>Andrew Suffield wrote: >>>On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:30:55PM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote: >>> >>>>Are there any other examples of restrictions placed on open-source licenses >>>>that Debian has had to deal with in the past? When a package is resricted >>>>by trademark usage, does Debian have a policy to effectively deal with it? >>> >>>There's no difference between trademark law and anything else, and >>>nothing special about copyright law. We are interested in what you can >>>do with the work, for *whatever* legal reasons. It is significant that >>>the DFSG does not talk about copyrights. >> >>Agreed entirely; unfortunately, this logic does not seem to be applied >>in the case of the discussions of the license for the Debian logo. See >>the "Free Debian logos?" thread. > > The Official Use logo is not, as far as I understand, intended to be > DFSG-free at all, and is not intended to be used in main; I don't think > this is considered a bug. The Open Use logo should be, but isn't; this > is a bug, but I think it's an acknowledged one. I understand that. The thread in question was primarily discussing the Open Use logo license. > I don't think many people are seriously advocating that the DFSG only > applies to restrictions made under copyright law. In that thread, several people suggested that a restriction such as "You may not use this logo, or any confusingly similar logo, to refer to anything else in a way which might cause confusion with Debian." was Free, and furthermore that it was as free as a trademark license could be. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature