Re: Bug#628952: minidlna: Possible unknown copyright status of hardcoded image blobs in source code
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 19:20, Bernhard R. Link <brlink@debian.org> wrote:
> * Benoīt Knecht <benoit.knecht@fsfe.org> [110606 11:57]:
>> I had a look at these, and I'm pretty sure they're not eligible for
>> copyright protection (a white 'N' on a blue background is not nearly
>> creative enough). So I don't think there's a problem there; the license
>> header should just be corrected to state that there's no copyright on
>> this particular logo. What do you think?
>
> Removing the copyright notice is extremly dangerous. It's the only thing
> universally forbidden even before the copyright-mafia successfully lobbied
> for more in many countries.
>
> So ideally the copyright holder would have to do it (or at least the one
> having written the copyright notice), but then it is easier to just add
> some permissive license to it.
>
> Also note that the "not eligible for copyright" is a very hard question
> if looking at more than one country. Ironically the most problematic
> countries might be those that have historically high requirements on
> creativity for work to be protected (as the general "needs creativity"
> rule has to be lifted for software in order to have any commercial
> software to be eligible)
>
> Bernhard R. Link
>
I've have had an discussion with upstream Justin Maggard (added as
cc), and following is what his legal department says:
>Here's what I got from the legal dept:
>
>"We consider the NETGEAR image to be copyrighted property of NETGEAR.
>The image's binary blob does not contain any GPL code and is not
>licensed under any software license. Permission has been granted for
>the free distribution of these images with the MiniDLNA software
>application."
>
>Just thinking about this stuff makes my head hurt. :) If it makes you
>more comfortable, feel free to rip out the NETGEAR images from your
>tree. Regarding the Tux image, it's hard for me to image it being an
>issue, since the Linux kernel has been embedding it for years.
>
>-Justin
--
Carl Fürstenberg
Reply to: