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

Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches

William Ballard writes:

> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of
> > understanding of copyright and trademark law.  There's nothing even
> > remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in freely
> > licensing the result.
> So package the Golden Arches.  Like I said -- it's the intellecutal and 
> creative laziness of including them.  I can't imagine why anybody would 
> *want* to look at them.  How deriviative and uninspired.

If you want such an image in Debian, work with someone to package it.
If you do not want it in Debian, do not bother.  Either way, kindly
stop ordering others to package it.

> Plus it's icky to see people get away with anything they can possibly 
> get away with WRT intellecutal property.  Create brand new things and 
> give them away.  Create a new and exciting image of a lighter, just 
> don't hold up your Bic and trace it.

The point of Debian is to provide useful free software to users.  I
know of only three requirements for a Debian package:

(a) the package must satisfy the DFSG; and
(b) Debian and mirror operators may legally distribute the package;
(c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package.

Notice there is no reference to or implication of "getting away with"
anything.  So far you have not made a plausible argument as to why the
clip art package fails any of those requirements.  While copyright law
narrowly defines fair use, trademark law narrowly defines restricted
use.  See 15 USC 1114 and 15 USC 1125 for details.

> It's mostly disappointing.

It is more than disappointing when people attempt FUD, especially in
the face of repeated explanations and corrections from others.

Michael Poole

Reply to: