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

Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:11:57 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:

> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > To use them as long as there's no confusion going on.
> > If a logo means endorsement, you cannot use it on non endorsed
> > products.
> If the license works like this, I cannot take the official logo
> and use it to promote my car repair business. 
> I thought the whole idea was that I *could* put the Official Use
> logo on anything, as long as I didn't falsely pretend my product
> was endorsed. My car repair business has nothing to do with
> the Debian Project, no one will be confused about the origin of
> my service and I do not pretend I am an affiliate of Debian.
> If you do want to permit this, there won't be much difference
> between the Official and the Open logo anymore. 
> If you don't want to permit this, then maybe this open trademark
> license is not the right choice. You need some pretty tough
> usage restrictions if you want to control the official use logo
> to that extent.

OK, I think I begin to see your point and which is the question the
Debian Project has to answer: should people be allowed to use the
Official Use Logo on anything, as long as endorsement is not claimed?

I think I must stop for a while and wait for some opinions from DDs
(which I am not...), before going on with the proposed trademark license
Also, a clarification by Nathanael on what he meant to achieve with his
original proposal would be useful: Nathanael, did you intend to allow or
forbid the above-outlined scenario?

 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: pgpzErY3U8Vct.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: