Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
>>>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
>>
>> Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works,
>> projects, and organizations as belonging to/being endorsed by/being part
>> of Debian.
>>
>> That's a standard, acceptable class of restrictions, isn't it? This
>> really *is* about misrepresentation and nothing more.
>
> If that is truly the case, then you don't need to say that at all in the
> license. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00540.html
> and the resulting thread. Claiming endorsement by someone else without
> their permission is already illegal.
That's for a *person*, whose name has its own rules. Organizations,
particularly unincorporated organizations (corporations are often
considered "people" by the law), are sometimes different.
We also want to prevent "accidental" misrepresentation where someone else
"just happens to" use the same name (Debian) or logo (swirl) for their
proprietary software company. That's not actually claiming endorsement;
they're just attempting to confuse people without actually making a claim;
but it is common-law trademark infringement. This is a branding issue
vaguely akin to requiring name changes for forks.
Under US trademark law, if some unrelated company sets up as "Debian
Computing" and proceeds to operate as such, with Debian's knowledge, and
Debian does not try to stop it, Debian will lose its trademark in the name
"Debian", and the company will be able to go on using its name forever. Is
this desirable? I assumed not. Is preventing this Free? I assumed yes.
Now, trademark law nowadays allows the regulation of trademark use pretty
heavily. Debian probably wants to allow anything *except* for deliberate
attempts to confuse people. Exactly to what extent we want to allow others
to use the Debian name and logo to confuse people is another matter. :-)
> Therefore, using the Debian logo
> to claim endorsement by Debian without permission is already illegal, so
> the Debian logo license should not mention it.
>
>> If I have accidentally made the restrictions broader than that in my
>> proposed licenses, then it's a mistake which should be fixed.
>
> I belive that is what happened, yes.
OK. :-) That's a good argument for separate trademark and copyright
licenses; it prevents accidental contamination by sloppy writing such as
mine.
Well, since we're agreed on the copyright licensing terms, how about we go
ahead and do that.
Just put a "This copyright license does not grant a trademark license"
disclaimer after your choice of standard license, and I think we're set,
right?
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Reply to: