Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Interesting. I'm certainly not a person who would argue for extending
> the rights of people to organizations and corporations. :) But in this
> narrow case, it seems more than reasonable that the law should prohibit
> saying "Endorsed by Debian" if that is not the case. If this is not
> true, I would be quite surprised.
That's called a trademark. Certainly, the implicit form of it is.
You're advocating that Debian surrender its trademark rights. In
other words, if we "free" the Debian trademarks as you suggest, then
we will in no sense *be* the Debian who has the right to sue about
others claiming that something is Endorsed by Debian.
>> 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.
>
> That's a much broader restriction. Prohibiting false endorsement seems
> quite reasonable, whether or not they use the Debian logo. Prohibiting
> all uses of the logo that don't refer to Debian is far broader, and in
> my opinion clearly in non-free territory.
You are not responding to what was said. He said he wanted to prevent
accidental misrepresentation, confusing people by using the Debian
logo for other software products. If somebody wishes to produce a car
or a dogfood product using the Swirl logo, that's presumably fine.
>> 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.
>
> I believe the answer would be "no, preventing that use of the logo is
> not Free". If the logo cannot be used, unmodified, to refer to anything
> but Debian, that seems blatantly non-free.
>
> Now, whether we want to permit some business to actually _call
> themselves_ "Debian Computing" is independent of whether we make the
> logo license Free. I find the idea of restricting such naming far less
> objectionable.
Why is the textual name allowed to be less free than the graphical name?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: