[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub

Raul Miller wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>>>So... what is the DFSG restriction that's violated?
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:51:50PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>DFSG 6.
>>Suppose I wrote a license that granted all the standard rights to use,
>>copy, modify, and distribute, but that placed some non-free restriction
>>on commercial distributors.  That's non-free, just as it would be if I
>>prohibited commercial use entirely.
> You're begging the question here -- yes, it's true that if you placed
> some non-free restriction on commercial distributors, that that would
> be non-free.  But you have to start with a non-free restriction, and
> that's what I'm asking you to identify.

Any particular restriction which would be non-free if applied to
everyone.  For example, requirements to be compliant with a standard, or
to not compete with the original piece of software, or to send
modifications to the author, or to only use unmodified versions for a
particular purpose.

> But, not all restrictions are non-free restrictions.  For example,
> the GPL places restrictions on the charges which can be placed on GPLed
> software by commercial distributors.

No, it doesn't.  It does place restrictions on the charges which can be
placed on the source of GPLed software for which the recipient has binaries.

Nevertheless, I understand and agree with the statement that there exist
acceptable restrictions.

>>Similarly, if you restrict the types of use of the logo in a particular
>>field of endeavor, that's a non-free restriction, just as if you
>>prohibited the use of the logo entirely in that field of endeavor, or in
>>all fields of endeavor.
> But commercial distributors can use the Debian logo -- they have to use
> it in an honest fashion, but I don't see any reason to treat fraud as
> a field of endeavor.
> If we treat fraud as a field of endeavor, then we'd have to throw out
> the GPL for its requirement that copyright notices be preserved.

*sigh*.  First of all, this was an analogy, from restrictions placed on
commercial distributors to other restrictions placed on other fields of
endeavor.  The intent was not to state that the proposed logo license
restricts commercial distributors in some way (which it doesn't), but
that it places a restriction on anyone in the domain in which Debian
hold its trademarks, that restriction being that they cannot use
unmodified or insufficiently-modified versions except to refer to Debian.

Second, I disagree with what you are attempting to imply with your use
of the terms "honest" and "fraud"; I believe you are misconstruing those
terms to mean "various things I don't think we should allow".  I see no
reason to distinguish the proposed license terms from terms like "you
may not use this software as a basis for competing software, or to run a
competing website".

Finally, I do not consider fraud to be a field of endeavor, and I do not
support fraudulent uses of the logo, which to me would include using the
logo to claim endorsement or affiliation, removing legal notices,
misrepresenting the origins of the logo, or similar issues, most of
which are prohibited regardless of whether the license explicitly does
so.  This does not include simply using the logo for non-"referring to
Debian" purposes.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: