Re: GPL-2+ with additional trademark spice
On 30.01.2018 21:33, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 07:14:43AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Mihai Moldovan <email@example.com> writes:
While working on a package (not yet part of Debian), I noticed the following
copyright and license notice:
Thank you for posting the full text of the grant of license.
# This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use,
# modify, copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions of
# the GNU General Public License v.2, or (at your option) any later version.
[…] Any Red Hat trademarks that are incorporated in the
# source code or documentation are not subject to the GNU General Public
# License and may only be used or replicated with the express permission of
# Red Hat, Inc.
This is confusing, because the GNU GPL v2 has no mention of trademark. I
would advise the copyright holder to phrase this in terms of what the
GPL actually permits or forbids.
(Red Hat lawyer here)
This is a really old form of Red Hat license notice. It predates my
original joining of Red Hat in 2008, even though, if this is about the
Spice project (https://www.spice-space.org/), that project did not
exist as such until after 2008. As soon as I became aware of it I got
rid of it as an internally-recommended license notice.
If anyone wants to submit a patch to the project proposing that this
language be replaced -- say, with the FSF-recommended language
contained in GPLv2 -- I will be supportive. (Since it doesn't strike
me as the most egregious or important problem in the world and I have
a lot of other things to do at the moment I am not likely to act on
this myself in the short term.)
Whilst the precise issue seems solved - remember a case in Germany where
a distributor was condemned as the author made a trademark of the
code-files name. The ruling was: it is permitted to distribute the code,
but not to mention the protected name at the website of the distributor.