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

Re: Debian logos and trademarks

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:57:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The DFSG refers to copyright licensing, it doesn't cover patents or
> > trademarks.
> It actually doesn't refer to any of them specifically. It does talk
> about licensing, but it doesn't clarify whether it's refering to
> copyright licensing or trademark licensing.

It talks about modification and distribution, which are copyright issues.

> In any event, this entire line of argument isn't particularly
> important, so long as no one puts the official logo into main or
> contrib. 

That's a completely new line of argument to the best of my knowledge,
and not one which Debian should support, in my opinion. Having a free
copyright license, and a reasonably permissive trademark license is
sufficient for a name or logo to be in main, cf the terms Gnome, apache,
java, or Debian for example.

If you want to do an in depth legal/dfsg analysis in response to this,
please limit it to -legal; if you want that response to be taken into
account, please make it persuasive to people who don't already agree
with you -- consider people who hold each of the opinions represented
by the GFDL ballot from last year, eg.

Please note that historically we've protected both logos (the swirl
and the bottle) using a non-free copyright license, and as unregistered


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: