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

Debian logos and their licenses [was: Re: About Logo License]



On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:28:55 +0000 John Halton wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:12:53PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Wait, wait! Debian's own policy is not satisfactory! At least, I
> > don't consider it to be satisfactory (or DFSG-free), and other
> > people seem to agree with me that it should be changed.
> 
> I'm aware that the licensing position regarding the Debian logos is
> subject to ongoing discussion. However, pending a change of official
> position it still seems reasonable for packages within Debian to adopt
> the same policy.

I don't agree: the current Debian logo licensing has been considered as
buggy.
I haven't filed serious bugs against packages in main including Debian
logos, since I knew that the issue was being worked on.  I think that
probably other people have refrained from filing serious bugs for
similar reasons.

But anyway, the situation is buggy.
I would rather avoid suggesting other people to introduce more bugs,
just because there already are similar bugs which are not fixed yet... 

[...]
> To put it another way: whatever one thinks of the Debian logo policy,
> it seems harsh on OP to make him comply with a stricter interpretation
> of the DFSG than the Debian project currently applies to its own logo.

I don't think that the Debian Project is currently claiming that the
Debian logos comply with the DFSG.  Quite the opposite, I would say.
Their failure to comply with the DFSG is one of the primary reasons for
the need to change their licensing!

> 
> > Please see the following threads, for the gory details:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00013.html
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00071.html
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00206.html
> 
> Thanks for the links.

You're welcome.

> The interaction between copyright and trade
> marks is not straightforward, especially when dealing with logos and
> other images. I don't think any of the specific queries regarding the
> Debian logo (etc.) can be answered without a broader decision on how
> to handle trade mark rights in a free software context.

This is one of the reasons why the issue is being worked on so slowly,
IMHO.
There's a lot of headscratching when it comes to understanding the
interaction between copyrights, trade marks, and the DFSG...

I think that, in many ways, the help of a real lawyer (like you!) would
have been valuable during those past discussions.

> 
> But this is taking us OT.

Off topic?  Why?
Just because the thread was about another logo?
Change the Subject:, and everything is fine for debian-legal, IMHO.
I've just done so.

> As I said above, from the point of view of
> OP's query, the fairest approach would seem to be to say, "Drop the
> 'clothing clause' and this should be fine for now, but bear in mind
> the policy may change in the future".

As I said, this would be suggesting something that is known to be bad.
I do not like doing so.


Once again: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpFCYxTIcXaf.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: