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

Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:46:31 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> Yeargh.  I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention in February and didn't
> see that Wiki  page.

Better late than never!  ;-)

> Look, we know what we want to do.
> (1) License the *copyright* freely as usual.
> (2) Restrict the *trademark* with traditional trademark restrictions
> only:  it may not be used for deliberate "palming off", but may be
> used in any other  way.  (So, crap like trademark "dilution" and
> "defamation" we do want to give  permission to do.)
> (3) Provide a model trademark license for upstreams to use.  :-)

Agreed, especially with (3)!

> I think we actually have a strong case for a new license.  I've made
> some  proposals on the Wiki page ProposedTrademarkPolicy.  Thinking
> further, I would  propose this, though I don't like it perfectly (it's
> unclear thanks to being  generic, unlike the ones on the Wiki page). 
> I really think we need a lawyer,  but the trouble is we're charting
> uncharted waters here, so they probably don't  know any more than we
> do.

I think that you should insert this new proposal in the Wiki page, or at
least a link to your debian-legal message[1].

[1] that is to say:

> Nathanael's Model Free Trademark License
> ----------------------------------------
> The work [X] is a trademark, held by [Y], representing [Z].
> The trademark holder hereby grants permission to any person to use the
> trademark (and derivative marks) in any way except one: you may not
> use it to falsely  represent something else as being the thing
> represented by the trademark.  This  permission should be interpreted
> broadly: any use which is not clearly deceptive  is permitted.
> The work is also subject to copyright, and is licensed under the
> copyright  license below, but that is not a trademark license and
> should not be construed  as one.
> -------

I think this sounds really good.
Maybe some minor wording enhancements could be applied in order to make
it great, but I would not know exactly which.
Hence, for the time being, I second your proposed trademark license.

> Potential usage examples follow.  These are "paragraph one"
> descriptions, with  the other two paragraphs identical to the above.
[snip examples...]

The examples look great too.

> Thoughts welcome.

So far, the only thing that comes to my mind is the following.
With your proposed plan, the Official Logo would become DFSG-free
(right?), which is *great*, but means that it could be incorporated in
packages included in Debian main.
Since in some cases that could imply that Debian derivatives should
purge at least some instances of the Official Logo (imagine Ubuntu or
MEPIS or Knoppix shipping with a Debian Official Logo in their default
GDM login splash screen... it would be inappropriate at best), I think
that maybe we should prevent the Official Logo from appearing in main.
How could this be done?  Forbidding the inclusion of the Official Logo
in main with a special Debian Policy rule?

> Also, please feel free to forward this to anyone
> who's doing  something about the 'logo issues'.

I think the current DPL (Anthony Towns) and the newly elected DPL (Sam
Hocevar) should be pointed to this thread, as well as the SPI Board.

 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpg8M6LW3waf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: