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

Re: Minimum required copyright/license for logo

[I resend this message since I *again* got struck by bug#302264:
I apologize for forgetting to avoid lines beginning with "From "...]

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:56:44 +0200 (MEST) Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:

> Hi,
> for the FreeMind package, which I am maintaining as a non-DD, upstream
> has planned to use a new logotype, for which I couldn't find any
> license information (see [1]). Discussing with upstream, I suggested
> to apply the GPL license as the rest of the program has,


> against which
> they argued that the logotype is not supposed to be used for other
> things than FreeMind.

This is something that fits the concept of trademark, not copyright.
And I'm (still) undecided whether it is something that complies with the
DFSG, anyway...  :-(

> My current position is that any kind of license would be required to
> avoid uncertainty, but I'm a bit short on arguments for my position,
> and I'm not even sure it's the right argumentation. I didn't find
> anything specific in the Debian policy, so I come to you.

Unfortunately, trademark issues in free software are relatively less
debated with respect to copyright and patent ones. Consequently there's
no clear Debian policy (AFAIK) regarding them...  :-(

I hope someone will correct me, if I'm wrong.

> Is a license required for such a logotype?

Talking from a copyright point of view, you don't even have the legal
permission to redistribute the image, unless stated otherwise.
Consequently, yes, a license or permission notice is mandatory, if you
want to ship that image in the Debian package.

> Some arguments?

The one above.
Moreover, the freemind package is distributed in contrib[*] (at least as
far as sarge is concerned). This means that it must comply with the
DFSG, otherwise you would be compelled to move it to non-free (as long
as it's distributable at all!).
So a DFSG-free copyright license for the logotype image is definitely
Which trademark permissions are required (when and if the logotype is
trademarked) is still an open question, AFAICT.

[*] why not in main? I suppose because it [Build-]Depends on non-free
Java implementations. Did you try it out with recent DFGS-free Java
compilers and virtual machines?

> Is there a standard one applicable?

For the copyright side, the usual ones: GPLv2, Expat, X11, 2-clause BSD,

> (I've seen that Debian has
> actually created its own [2]; a more generic one would be nice)

Please don't recommend the Debian logo licenses, since they are under
review just now and should change sooner or later (I hope sooner!).
See Message-Id: <20050727221304.7deeae00.frx@winstonsmith.info>.

> Thanks a lot, Eric

You are welcome, I hope someone else will add knowledge to this topic...

> PS: I'm not on the list, please put me cc.


    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpnKSbvaWbqj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: