Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license
Francesco Poli wrote:
> How would the revised wording look like?
Basically, you need to forbid people from doing things with the mark
that create confusion or that make it look like these things are
endorsed by the Debian Project (or SPI?).
I could imagine something like this would be a good start for the
SPI trademark lawyers:
The Mark Holder hereby licenses you to use the Marks in any way
and for any purpose, with the exception of the following:
You are not authorized to use the Marks in commerce in any way that
is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive
(1) as to the affiliation, connection, or association of you or your
product, service or other commercial activity with the Mark Holder, or
(2) as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of your product, service
or other commercial activity by the Mark Holder
If the Mark qualifies as an original work of authorship under copyright law,
then the above license includes the right to use, copy, modify, merge,
publish, distribute and sell the Mark or any derivative work thereof,
again subject to the above exception.
The "in commerce" should take care of people criticizing Debian and
using its name or logos to illustrate their articles.
I would suggest making the copyright license conditional upon the
trademark qualifying for copyright. Otherwise people may think you
are claiming that you have a copyright on the word "Debian".
In the original message Nathaniel Nerode limited the exception to
only "no false representation" with a qualification that it would
have to be "clearly deceptive". If I were giving legal advice,
I would advise against that limitation. But I'm not so I'm not.
PS Sorry about the cc, I thought my mutt was trained not to do that.
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/