Re: RC bug filled against desktop-base related to the open logo.
Hi MJ,
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> Gustavo Franco wrote:
>> Please bear with me if it was discussed here before, I wasn't CC'ed.
>
> Do you want to be? I've guessed yes, but please state explicitly.
Yes, please do Cc me. Thanks.
> Pre-filing discussion is around
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/06/msg00014.html
>
>> Pompee William filled #587668 (The Debian open logo with "Debian" is
>> not compliant to the Debian policy) against desktop-base. #587482 was
>> filled against gdm-themes
>>
>> I don't really see the point for the following reasons, but would like
>> you to shed some light:
>>
>> * It's not the open logo itself, but the swirl + Debian with Debian's
>> logo regular font;
>
> This is arguably an acceptable reason for copyright, although I'm
> unsure whether it's still derived from it. Why was the debian
> in the usual font put there? To look like the logo with text?
Well, because it's the default Debian wallpaper so it makes sense use
the usual font. Yes.
>> * Btw, if it was the open logo, we're not talking about software. DFSG
>> quote about Derived Works states "original software";
>
> I feel that's unacceptable - the logo is software, even if it might
> not be a program in some formats. Arguing otherwise would allow all
> manner of unmodifiable rubbish into debian.
Technically, if you consider a logo is a software itself - where's the
source code? I mean the uncompressed and descriptive formats (SVGs and
friends) that were used to generate the compressed and sometimes lossy
ones (PNG, JPG, ...).
I see no requirements to distribute SVGs, so if we follow your mindset
the "unmodifiable rubbish" is already there. It's just less
unmodifiable because we're talking about images and not mixing
binaries using a hex editor.
>> * If DFSG explicitly included images, fonts and music we would still
>> need to protect Debian trademark.
>
> Protect it from what? Misuse maybe, but there are other laws against
> abuse and honest use isn't restricted by trademark (at least not here
> http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1994/ukpga_19940026_en_1.html#pt1-pb3-l1g11
> ). As I understand it, 11(2)(b) means that indicating the intended
> purpose of a backdrop as one for a debian system is not infringing a
> trademark (so doesn't need a trademark licence). Do others think
> I've understood that correctly? Are other laws (TRIPS?) similar?
Misuse, yes.
> [...]
regards,
-- Gustavo "stratus" Franco
Reply to: