On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:15:00 +0100 Sam Hocevar wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > The whole reason the licensing of the Debian logos is being changed > > is because the previous licensing made them unsuitable for use > > within the main archive. This is generally acknowledged as a bug, > > but shipping the official Debian logo within main is *also* a bug > > until the licensing is remedied. > > FWIW, there are no plans to change the official logo licensing as > far as I know. Unless someone comes up with a suggestion that complies > with trademark law, it will have to remain non-free if we want it to > serve the purpose it was created for. I assume you mean that the current plan is to change the license for the Open Use Logo only (making it DFSG-free), while leaving the Official Use Logo licensing unchanged (and thus non-free). If this is the case, I wonder whether anyone (beyond debian-legal regulars) has read the (already cited) discussion that starts here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00071.html Did the people involved in the current logo plan review it? Moreover, that discussion stopped, waiting for input that has not yet arrived: unanswered questions are included in this message (by me) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00154.html -- 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:
pgpJKzVpwHEU1.pgp
Description: PGP signature