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

Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:28:15 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:

> 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.

Sounds good, except for one aspect that concerns me: we are trying to
write a good *trademark* license; I would not complicate things further
by trying to write a trademark *and copyright* license.
I would rather avoid mixing those two areas of law.

What concerns me most is making the copyright grant of permission
conditional on the no-confusion condition.
Suppose I derive a new image from the Debian swirl logo, and assume that
my derivative work is sufficiently different that it's not confusingly
similar to the original logo.  It is my understanding that I would not
need any trademark license to use my heavily modified image (not even
for commercial use).  Is this correct?  I would instead need a copyright
license to create and distribute my derivative work.
With a copyright license that incorporates the no-confusion condition, I
would still be subject to this restriction, which on the other hand
would not make much sense at this point...
In summary, I think that enforcing trademark-like restrictions through
copyright would be possibly harmful...

I would rather adopt a well-established license (chosen among the ones
that meet the DFSG, obviously) for the copyright side of the licensing.
The Expat license would be fine, IMO.

> 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".

Of course.

> 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.

Thanks for your non-advice!  ;-)

> Arnoud
> PS Sorry about the cc, I thought my mutt was trained not to do that.

Don't worry...

 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: pgpa7RmRyRb5o.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: