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

Re: When can we make some progress on the logo and trademarks?

* Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> [2006-01-18 22:39]:
> 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.
> We have discussed this.  -legal agreed that the license should be
> changed, and has proposed multiple alternative licenses.

 When in about was this? How long will we have to wait? Why do we think
this might happen earlier than the GFDL come up with a revision of the
licence that is DFSG free?

 Why do we apply a different reasoning to the clearly non-free logo,
where the non-freeness of the GFDL needed to be discussed so throughly?

> This was going to be delayed until a proper trademark policy was in
> place.

 How long should that be delayed? Why don't we delay the GFDL moval to
non-free until a proper GFDL v2 or whatever is in place? What makes us
think that this would happen earlier?

 I think it got delayed too long. I ask for actions now: Either get the
packages that contain the non-free swirl into non-free alongside with
the GFDL movals, or none. Because doing the one and not the other will
make us just a big laugh of hypocrites. We can't afford to work that
strongly against our own DFSG just because the logo is from us and the
documents are from the FSF.

> -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.

 Since when? Sorry, but I asked for pointers so I can read up on

> For *some reason*, although we've agreed on all of this for *years*,
> it's stalled somewhere where we can't do anything about it.

 Ah, for years. Great. And still within this period we managed to
concluded that GFDL documents have to leave but the logo still is able
to stand? Don't you think that this is a bit... erm... absurd?

> If a review of what we decided on is needed, I can whip one up.

 Yes, please.
<rm_-rf_> The real value of KDE is that they inspired and push the
          development of GNOME :-)
        -- #Debian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: