Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
- From: Raul Miller <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:27:25 -0400
- Message-id: <20041012172725.M28624@links.magenta.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; from email@example.com on Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 05:03:30PM -0400
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 05:03:30PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> account; I agree that it should have. I don't have much experience with
> designing trademark licenses, as you can tell. Having a trademark license
> Why don't we simply start with a permissive copyright license,
> and a statement like this:
> "This copyright license does not grant a trademark license.
> "The Debian Open Use Logo is a trademark of the Debian Project. The Debian
> Project is still trying to decide on trademark policy. We hope we will
> have a better trademark license for you soon. In the meantime, the Debian
> Open Use Logo trademark may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian
> project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. Anyone is, of
> course, also permitted to use the logo in any way which conforms to the
> copyright license and does not infringe on Debian's trademark rights."
You're talking about trademark rights here, rather than copyright rights,
so calling that a copyright license, and claiming that it doesn't grant
trademark rights seems somewhat useless.
Also, it's not clear to me that trademarks are copyrightable works.
Anyone already has permission to use a trademark in any context --
indeed, in arbitrarily copyrighted works -- as long as they use it to
correctly identify what it's supposed to identify.
I don't see any serious reason to try to pretend otherwise.