When can we make some progress on the logo and trademarks? (was Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> There is one last point that I really want to raise, though: I guess we
> won't have to discuss that our very own beloved swirl logo has a
> non-free licence. If we are really going to kick out GFDL documentation
> we have to be at least as fair as kicking out our logo from the archive,
> too. Otherwise we will just be laughed at, and not fulfilling our own
> DFSG, where we won't accept a Debian specific licence in main.
We have discussed this. -legal agreed that the license should be changed, and
has proposed multiple alternative licenses. The change to any of those
licenses was agreed to by the logo's creator, and by the DPL and various
This was going to be delayed until a proper trademark policy was in place.
-legal came up with a pretty solid plan for what we wanted for a trademark
policy; we wanted some review by a lawyer with some knowledge of trademark
law. We haven't heard back since. For *some reason*, although we've agreed
on all of this for *years*, it's stalled somewhere where we can't do anything
I've Cc:ed this to the DPL in hopes of getting something kickstarted, or at
least of getting a status report. As far as I can tell, -legal has done its
job, and only incomprehensible institutional delays are preventing this from
actually happening. Yes, it ticks me off a bit.
If a review of what we decided on is needed, I can whip one up.