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

Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines

"John Halton" <johnhalton@gmail.com> wrote in message [🔎] 20071204194613.GC4757@debian.borkwood">news:[🔎] 20071204194613.GC4757@debian.borkwood...

     3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which
        they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on
        which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the
        recipient receives a usable copy.

Paragraph 3 may be the first problem. It basically prevents "cheap CD"
vendors from selling copies of Debian on an "as is" basis.

I'm not sure this is a real concern. are they really selling the media as-is?
So If the cd comes scratched so bad it does not work, or is warped,
the buyer has no recourse?

I can see no warrenty on data being useable for anything, but
I'm not aware of anybody who sells Disc's who does not have at least a limited warrenty covering manufactiong defects on the media. (As opposed to data defects)

[Snip, following quote is in regard to the FTP part of the license]

If Red Hat consider a README in the same download directory to be good
enough then that should be fine, however.

Presumably it would be fine in general. However, it may be a problem for Debian,
as I'm not sure our arcitecture is properly set up for this.

Including that notice in the package long description would certainly cover
the packages.debian.org and downloading via aptitude/synaptic.
But I don't think out ftp architecture is set up such as to allow us to include a README file
in the same directory.

My guess is that including the statement in the package's long description is would be considered by RedHat as sufficient, but we should really get clarification.

Modified Mugshot Client Code – Limited Trademark Permission

Red Hat and the Mugshot Project support the extension of Mugshot™ to
new platforms and languages. Red Hat grants a limited permission to
use the Mugshot™ mark on these modified versions of the Mugshot™
client code

Note that is only covers extending Mugshot to other platforms and
languages, not distributing modified versions for the same platform or
language. But packaging it for Debian probably counts as "extension
... to a new platform", especially given the stated purpose of this
"limited permission" being to make Mugshot as widely available as
possible (while preserving Red Hat's trade mark rights).

Indeed. I would consider Debian a seperate platform, in so far as it has a seperate package managment system. Clarification by RedHat on this point would be nice, but I'm fairly convinced this is not a problem.

provided the following conditions are met:

     1. You identify your version of the client code as an adapted
        version of Mugshot™ in the “About” dialog associated with
        the Mugshot icon. The attribution statement should be
        similar to: “Mugshot™ client code adapted for ____.”

I'm guessing that's OK.

I agree. There is no special freeness problem here because we (or the end user)
could always change the program name if they wanted to remove that message.

     2. You do not prefix the named product with "Red Hat" (e.g.
        "Red Hat Mugshot" is not allowed.).

That's fine too.

Agreed. No problem there. After all "Debian's Red Hat Mugshot package"
would sound really weird. :-D.

     3. The changes you make do not alter the fundamental user
        experience from that provided by Mugshot™ as made available
        by Red Hat. That is, you can: 1. localize the client code;
        2. provide patches or bug fixes to the client code; 3.
        provide extensions or plug-ins to the client code; or 4.
        adapt the client code to run on another platform; but 5. you
        cannot substantively modify or remove basic components of
        the client code such that the user experience is altered. 4.
        You do not redirect the client code to operate with a server
        other than the server found at mugshot.org

Again, that's probably OK too. From a free software POV, it's always
open to people to do any of the unpermitted acts under a different

Yeah. That sounds fine, and sounds like it includes all we really would need to
make a Debian package using the Mugshot name.

It is very important that any modified version of Mugshot™ meet (or
exceed) the quality level people have come to associate with
Mugshot™. Red Hat reserves the right to require persons to cease use
of the Mugshot™ mark if they are redistributing software with low
quality and efforts to remedy the situation have not succeeded.

This is probably a key point in practice. It would be worth getting
Red Hat to confirm that they are happy with the Debian package. IIRC
the issue over Firefox/Iceweasel arose (at least in part) because
Mozilla were unhappy with some of the changes being made in order to
Debianize the software (e.g. disabling the built-in update system).

That was a small part. They had a policy of not letting patched versions be called Firefox, unless the patches were approved. That is fair enough, and I suspect that most changes could have gotten approval. If our patches were not approved and they made Firefox unstable, it would reflect badly on Mozilla Corp. However, it seems likely that some comrpomise could have been reached. (A closely related issue was backporting security fixes to old versions in Stable, because of the policy not to indroduce new upstream versions in Stable.)

However, the real killer was the logo. The Firefox Logo has a non-free copyright license, that attempts to basically enforce tradmark rights using copyright. This is a problem. Debian has no problem with the fact that the logo is trademarked, but the non-free copyright prevents us prem distributing Firefox in main. The problem is that by attempting to enforce the trademark on the logo via copyrights prevents users from making dervitive works, even those that could not possibly be confused with the Firefox logo. Mozilla Corp was not willing to chane the copyright license on the logo, nor to allow us to distribute the Firefox branded browser without the logo. They even rejected the potential compromise of using a re-created version of the logo, that has a free license (obviously trademark restrictions would still apply).

Back on topic:

Here however, there is no such logo problem. Further we are allowed to make any nessiary patches without pre-approval as long they do not alter the user experience or reduce the quality of the code. This is perfectly reasonable.

So in conclusion:

1.      The specific requirements on how the mark can be used on
       versions that are maintain the "fundamental user experience"
       can probably be lived with, assuming Red Hat don't have any
       objections to any changes necessary to make Mugshot play
       nicely with the Debian way of doing things.

Agreed. I also doubt Red Hat would raise any such objections.

2.      The problems are (i) requiring a warranty of the distribution
       media, and (possibly) (ii) the notices required to be
       displayed where the software is downloaded.

Yes. The distribution media thing is likely something the ftpmasters would need to decide. It not really so much a freeness problem, as potential practical problem should an organization unwilling to place a limited warrenty on the
physical media exist and desire to destribute Debian.

The notice requirement can be solved, if Red Hat agrees that including the notice in the package's long description is sufficient. (Which I expect they will, but we really need offical clarification on.)

Reply to: