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

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

Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes:

> Raul Miller wrote:
>>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>>But trademarks are names.  That's all they are -- not necessarily in
>>>>roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless.
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the
>>>drafters of DFSG4.  I would argue very strongly against that
>>>interpretation.  A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that
>>>identifies a project.  "GCC", "grub", "Linux", and "Apache" are all
>>>names.  A logo is not a name.
>> You're changing the subject from what Brian was talking about: the set of
>> "trademarks" has only a small area of overlap with the set of "logos".
>> Sure, there are logos which don't identify anything, but those logos
>> aren't trademarks.
> And in this case, the subject is a logo which is in the intersection of
> the set of "logos" and the set of "trademarks".
> "trademark" does not inherently imply "name" in the DFSG4 sense,
> although most trademarks are of names; neither does "logo".  A name is a
> name, not a logo, not a sound file, not a video clip, and not any other
> similar work.

A name does have an image and a sound, though.  Its image might move.
If I say "this doesn't pass the tex regression tests, so I can't call
it TeX.  I will call is Samuel, which is pronounced "Tech"" then I
haven't really changed the name.

> The sum total of what DFSG4 should permit a license to
> require is a change in the top-level non-functional string identifier
> for a work;

Absolutely not.  Requiring that derivatives of firefox stop using both
the name 'firefox' and the image of a flaming fox is perfectly
reasonable and free.

> I would be hesitant to say that it can even require a global
> s/NAME/SOMETHINGELSE/, especially if that name is ever used in
> functional manner, such as libNAME.so.42 or NAME_functionname.

Sure, of course functional components aren't names, or aren't purely
names and so you can't freely require they be changed.

> If we are going to permit arbitrary pieces of a work (including both
> functional and non-functional components), such as imagery, to be
> construed as a "name", then we have a serious Freeness problem.

Nobody suggested functional components but you.  I've only been
talking about those parts of the work which name it.

> * Use as the basis of any logo, for any organization.

Yes, that's intentional.  It's Debian's logo.

> * Use on the cover of a book.

Fine if it's a book about Debian, otherwise we don't want it to happen
because it weakens our trademark rights.

> * Use on a website (even of a competing distribution).

As above.

> * Use as the basis for hiding a steganographic message.

Irrelevant -- it can be used, only if the overt message is a reference
to Debian.

> * Use for Debian-derived distributions (though it would not give them
> the right to claim endorsement or affiliation, nor would any of the
> other cases).

Fine, if used as a reference to their Debian-derivedness.

> * Many other uses, few of which fall in the category of "referring to
> Debian", and none of which fall into the category of "fraud".
> * Use as the basis for any other image, which can then be used for all
> the same purposes.

I'd love to see your proposed license which allows practical use on
the cover of a book or on the pages of a competing distribution.

Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: