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

Re: Is the old trademark suggestion still reasonable?

On 17/04/11 16:36, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:05:44 +0100 Arand Nash wrote:


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?

Partly solved I would say, currently for Red Eclipse (and from how I interpret the license) there are only a few bits (sounds[in progress upstream], font, logo, name) which is non-DFSG.

My plan is to attempt to, for the next minor release of the game, try to fit it into non-free and work with upstream to maybe, hopefully, take care of these bits and make it into main eventually.

The majority of game data is CC-BY/CC-BY-SA (disagreement noted).

[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:

Noted, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't considered the plague or so, now when it has had some time to sit.

  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!

Yes I'm aware of this, but the way I understand things is that using the Expat/MIT straight off (as in the case of the swirl) ends up with a very weak trademark protection. And using the restrictive with-debian license would end up non-free.
Or am I mistaken here?


Reply to: