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

Re: ditching the official use logo?



Hi there!

I am not subscribed to -project, but I am to -www, so I am fine if you
keep the latter Cc:ed in replies, otherwise please Cc: me.

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:52:18 +0200, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 10:55:56PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Le Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 09:04:12AM -0400, David Prévot a écrit :
>> > Le 01/10/2012 06:40, Bart Martens a écrit :
>> > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:27:37PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> > >> Note for those who have never looked into this: the "official use" logo
>> > >> is the one with the bottle.
[...]
>> So, I'm going to try to be the lone voice of dissent here.

You are not alone.

> I think the very non-free logo serves to solve a very careful problem,
> which is to allow for officiating "exernal" things.
>
> Right now, the way I understand it is that you can, in a DFSG and legal
> way, create a document with the Debian logo & brand, and create a
> "certificate" that looks to be from Debian, and sell them as some sort
> of certification from Debian without recourse from the Debian project.

I do not see it so simple: as far as I understand it if you want
something official from the Debian project as a *whole* you anyway need
the approval of the DPL or the project (e.g. a GR).  But any official
member can use the non-free logo as she wishes.

> I know this is a borderline slimy argument, and I really (REALLY) don't
> like being on the side of non-free, but I think continuing to assert
> copyright / non-free conditions on the official use logo won't really
> cause much more harm.
>
> It's not like it's in the archive (correct me if I'm wrong, and if so,
> we should fix that), or commonly "violated" anyways (whereas the old
> logo was)

I do not see any problem with non-free material, providing that such
material is not in Debian (hint: main) and that we promote as much as we
can the free variant.  AFAIK both conditions are met for the Debian
logos.  And the simple fact that we need to specify which one is the
"official logo" means that most of the Debian user (official members
included) could probably not even know its existence.

> Stuff like DD certificiates (I think they already have this, but I've
> not seen one for a long long times),

They do not, and as far as the Git history goes back they have never
had:

  <http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=dpl/dpl.git;a=blob;f=dd-certificate/dd-certificate.tex;h=64ce4a0c3b58f774a3ac6ad228650bae16f4b098;hb=HEAD#l56>

> or other "official" documentes
> should carry the official logo, so their reproduction and modification
> is not legal.

I completely agree with such a point.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Attachment: pgpdF5zJGW53E.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: