Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > 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. That's true, in the sense that the name can be depicted in such works; once that happens, it is more than a name, because it is now also a data file in the project. I do not believe DFSG4 can or should be construed to apply to such data. > 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. That's pushing it far further than I believe DFSG4 was intended; you are now requiring extensive changes just so someone can create a modified version. >>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. Herein lies our fundamental disagreement: I find this non-free, and blatantly so. Requiring that you not use the top-level identifier "firefox" is already extremely close to the line, but acceptable due to DFSG4; requiring changes to images is well over the line, and I don't believe that relates to DFSG4 in any way. Furthermore, even if you do think DFSG4's "change the name" requirement applies here, that becomes completely ridiculous when *the entire work is the name*, as you claim; it would allow any arbitrary restrictions if interpreted in this manner. >>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. Glad to hear we agree on something. :) Now, in my opinion, a data file in a project is a functional part of the work, whether the file contains C code or image data. >>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. In <87brftlqj2.fsf@aule.evenmere.org>, available at <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00539.html>, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> writes: >>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:59:54 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>> Well, yes, but if I offer you the MS Visual C++ source code to >>> package for Debian, and I tell you I'll give it to you under the >>> GPL, you'll turn me down. Even though I give the relevant >>> permissions, and it's the copyright holder that does not. >> >> I'm not convinced that this is an equivalent situation... I could >> be misleaded by my opinion that software patents are an abuse and >> should not exist in the first place, but anyway I'll try and >> clarify what my position is. > > But we're talking about trademarks, too. Do you think trademarks > which cover software are an abuse? What about when those trademarks > describe functional behavior, like the shape of a car or the sound of > an engine? How about the interface of a computer, like an iPod? So yes, you have suggested functional components, which, by the way, cannot be restricted by trademarks (or otherwise you could use a trademark as a perpetual patent or copyright). Furthermore, this is part of the fundamental point of contention here: I think the parts you are suggesting (with the exception of the actual name of the work) are not names, but are actual functional data components of the work. >>* Use as the basis of any logo, for any organization. > > Yes, that's intentional. It's Debian's logo. Non-free restriction. >>* 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. Non-free restriction. Whether we consider the use desirable or not, or whether it affects our rights under any particular law, is irrelevant to the Freeness of the license. >>* Use on a website (even of a competing distribution). > > As above. Non-free restriction. >>* Use as the basis for hiding a steganographic message. > > Irrelevant -- it can be used, only if the overt message is a reference > to Debian. Non-free restriction. >>* 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. And not fine if not? Non-free restriction. >>* 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. We can't even begin to discuss a Free license, until we finish establishing that the restrictions you are suggesting are completely non-free. If you are suggesting that Debian's logo continue to be non-free, that's at least an understandable position to hold, though a highly-impractical one. If you are suggesting that we should permit these restrictions in a DFSG-free license, or permit works under this license in Debian main, then I suggest you provide a clear explanation of why these restrictions should be allowed under the DFSG, rather than simply pointing out how they relate to the scope and requirements of trademark law. The DFSG *does* *not* *care* what branch of law is used to spell out rights and restrictions. If it turns out there is no such thing as a DFSG-free license for a trademarked logo, then that's unfortunate, and we will have to decide whether we want a trademarked logo or a Free logo; that's certainly a reasonable point for debate. Arguing that something should be considered Free because it can't be any Freer without losing trademark rights is completely irrelevant. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature