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. [...] Stefano, 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 https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/08/msg00017.html 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. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt 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