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

Re: Is the old trademark suggestion still reasonable?

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:05:44 +0100 Arand Nash wrote:

> Hello.
> I'm shallowly involved with a game project which I hope someday might 
> make it into Debian.

You mean
don't you?

Impressive screenshots, I wonder which is the license for the game

Also, I seem to remember a number of licensing issues for the Cube
and the thread that followed (also with some messages that broke the
Have those issues been solved in the meanwhile?

> Currently they use a rather non-free trademark/logo license.

This is unfortunate.

> I read an interesting suggestion in the archives here[1] which I figured 
> might be worth proposing as an alternative to the main developers.
> My adapted version would read something like:[2]
> Is this still a suggestion for a trademark license which you would still 
> consider reasonably "OK" and fit for DFSG?
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00122.html

I personally think that that trademark license *draft* is still a good
starting point for a possible trademark license which doesn't cause
DFSG troubles.

Two big warnings, though:

 A.  that trademark license was a *draft*, not a final
     ready-to-be-adopted text; I was waiting for additional
     input before going on, but that input has never arrived:

 B.  that trademark license was being drafted as a proposed
     fix for the non-free Debian logos; the issue with Debian
     logos was later (partially) fixed in a different way:
     The announcement was then done on a DPN issue:

One additional warning is that I was personally involved in the
drafting of that proposed trademark license: as a consequence, I may of
course be a little biased in my opinion on it...
Let's wait for the answers of other debian-legal regulars!

> [2]
> The name "Red Eclipse" and the works know as the Red Eclipse logos
> Copyright (c) 2010 Red Eclipse Team
> This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
> Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative
> Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, 
> USA.

As an aside, I personally think that the chosen copyright license fails
to meet the DFSG:
However other people (including the FTP-masters!) seem to disagree with
me on CC-by-v3.0 and CC-by-sa-v3.0:

 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgp4qKcbge2_e.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: