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

Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:44:55 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:

> Le Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:34:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > 
> > In the meanwhile, what I was proposing was that the licensing of the
> > Debian Open Use Logo should not create a deliberate incompatibility
> > with either the GPLv2 or the GPLv3.
> Hi Francesco,

Hi Charles,

> The Debian Open Use Logo without « Debian » is still distributed under a
> persmissive license on www.debian.org/logos, so anybody who worries about
> license incompatibilities can make a backup now, and redistribute it under its
> permissive license later if it looks useful.

This is certainly true, and I acknowledged that in my previous
reply [1], where I mentioned the Wayback Machine of archive.org (for
example the snapshot taken on June 2011, the 29th [2] should be usable
as a backup for the Expat-licensed logo).

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/09/msg00056.html
[2] http://web.archive.org/web/20110629034656/http://www.debian.org/logos/

What I was worrying about was that:

  (A) in the future, anyone who visits the official web site [3] (without
searching further elsewhere) will get the the Open Use Logo "without Debian" under
a much more restrictive license

  (B) the Open Use Logo "with Debian" (which has been non-free so far)
will become DFSG-free, but GPLv2-incompatible

[3] http://www.debian.org/logos/

I think that (A) looks like a regression and (B) is a poor licensing

> Have a nice day, 

The same to you!

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

Attachment: pgpCZhx8Hy9DP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: