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

Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo? [was: Re: bits from the DPL: August 2012]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:55:33 +0200 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> - The DFGS-free logo relicensing I've mentioned last month is now on its
>   way. Following advice from SFLC, I've slightly patched the current
>   trademark policy (mainly to clarify scope), just enough to decouple
>   logo relicensing under LGPLv3/CC-BY-SA 3.0 from the finalization of a
>   new trademark policy (see above). I've also verified that the license
>   choice is fine with teams that regularly deal with the logos.

I am following up to your August bits from the DPL, since I still have
to understand why it was suggested to dual license the Open Use Logo
"with Debian" under LGPLv3+ / CC-by-sa-v3.0.

I have already asked in
but I have received no answer for this question.

So once again: why not under the Expat license, as the Open Use Logo
"without Debian"?
Maybe a copyleft better protects the trademarked text?
I am not sure I understand why...
Anyway, as long as a copyleft is needed, I think that a LGPLv3+ /
CC-by-sa-v3.0 dual license would be a poor choice, since it's
GPLv3-compatible, but GPLv2-incompatible.
I don't think the Debian Project should prevent its Open Use Logo from
being embedded into a GPLv2-licensed work.
I would suggest *at least* licensing under LGPLv2.1+ ...

Please clarify.
Thanks for your time.

P.S.: I am Ccing debian-project, but I am not subscribed to this list;
please Cc me on replies. Thanks.

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

Attachment: pgp2C5C59UPLN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: