Re: trademark licenses and DFSG: a summary
Ben Finney <ben+debian <at> benfinney.id.au> writes:
> Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala <at> pp1.inet.fi> writes:
> > A trademark owner may trust the processes used by the Debian project
> > to produce results that meet their quality criteria, and may be able
> > to monitor the versions actually released by Debian and withdraw the
> > right to use the trademark should Debian change in a direction that
> > harms users.
> That statement implies a contradiction: that the trademark holder trusts
> the Debian project's processes, and does not trust the Debian project's
No, rather the trademark holder trusts Debian processes as they
currently work, but does not trust them to keep working the same way
indefinitely into the future.
> This highlights that a trademark is not about trust, I think.
> > There's no way a trademark owner would trust random people or
> > organizations they don't even know about, nor is it possible to
> > maintain quality control over those. Thus, I think it would make sense
> > to have arrangements allowing Debian specifically to modify the
> > software in ways deemed necessary by the project without asking
> > permission for each individual change. Downstreams would have to
> > either distribute the code unchanged, seek a similar arrangement with
> > the trademark owner, or rebrand.
> If so, then the Debian project would accept a critical freedom in the
> work that is not transferred to Debian recipients. That's unacceptable,
> by my understanding of the social contract.
What part of it? If you're referring to DFSG #8, i don't see how
that'd apply (extracting the program from Debian would not change
> > IMO attempts to apply the DFSG requirements to trademarks are
> > fundamentally flawed.
> A restriction is still a restriction whether implemented by copyright,
> trademark, contract, threats of violence, or back-room deals. Attempts
> to accept restrictions solely because of how they are implemented are
> fundamentally flawed, IMO.
You seem to think this would result in restrictions beyond those
allowed by the DFSG. But DFSG #4 already allows rebranding
requirements. So this is NOT a question of whether the result would
directly violate the DFSG. Any form of trademark license for modified
code is beyond the minimum required by DFSG.