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

Re: Open logo license changed

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:32:21 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:

> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:35:39 +0900 Paul Wise wrote:
> > > You might want to ask the current DPL about this. It might have
> > > something to do with the font used being non-free?
> "2. SPI's legal counsel, as reported at the Board's June 18, 2007
> meeting, suggested some limitations to the relicensing for the purpose
> of retaining enforceable trademark rights in the word "Debian";"
> Source: http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2008-March/002565.html

Ah, I was not aware of those conclusions.
Thanks for pointing them out.

> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> > Of course, it's possible that this announcement will be included in the
> > next "Bits from the DPL".
> > Anyway it seems that the logo page was last updated on September 25th,
> > which means that the logo was relicensed no later than on last
> > September: I expected that a move to (partially) address a
> > long-discussed issue would have been announced in a brief message
> > somewhere...
> Others have asked both DPL and Debian Press Team to announce it -
> without answer as far as I know.

I think this lack of answers from key roles in the Debian Project is a
bit worrying...

> I'm not surprised that it hasn't
> been announced, because my last call to debian developers about
> trademarks was answered by fewer than 20 developers.  I don't think
> the project cares about its trademark and others can infringe it
> without much fear already, no matter what the website says.

Then, I don't fully understand all these restrictions on the Open Use
Logo with the "Debian" text (or even on the Official Use Logo).
If the Project does not feel strongly about trademark protection, it
should be more permissive with the licensing of its logos.

I mean, there are two goals that are (maybe [1]) in partial contrast
with each other:
(a) prevent misleading abuses of Debian trademarks
(b) have DFSG-free logos for Debian
If the Project does not care much about (a), maybe it should push to
achieve (b), even at the cost of (partially) failing to achieve (a)...

Disclaimers as usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

[1] I am not sure that achieving both goals is impossible, but it's
    definitely tricky at best...
> It was announced in routine SPI communications (see above) and then I
> eventually changed the website to match.  I mentioned my actions in an
> email to debian developers, but not to d-d-a (because DDs seem not to
> care) or debian-legal (my mistake).
> Apologies,

Apologies accepted, thanks for clarifying!

 On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND
 "nano-documents" may lead you to my website...  
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp_ttdZLaFJG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: