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

Re: Firmware & Social Contract: GR proposal

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > There are people interested.  I think us mere mortals have been hindered
> > by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
> You might like to consider replying to:
>     Subject: Re: Presumably-unauthorized Open Logo use
>     Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 18:30:28 +1000
>     To: debian-private@lists.debian.org
> then.

OK.  Will it make any difference?  You already attack my previously-stated
position later in your mail as "irresponsible and inappropriate".

> > We could GR it, but there doesn't seem much objection - just inaction.
> When I asked in April about a week after my term began, Greg (the SPI
> lawyer) replied:
>     "I don't think there has been a great deal of interest in registering
>      the Debian logo.  [...] "

These both have little to do with correcting the copyright licence, though.

As I'm sure you know, a copyright licence doesn't let us act against
people who use an independently created, confusingly similar mark, so it
is surely not effective trademark enforcement.  Its main effect is to stop
free software uses of the logo, which is bizarre.  How is the non-free
software licence helping to enforce a trademark in Spain, for example?
Isn't the problem there a lack of a clear trademark policy and process?

> I haven't seen any interest whatsoever in dealing with this from other
> developers, so I've deprioritised it. If that changes, I'll be happy to
> put it back on my list of things to deal with.

So, it's not that "no one else has been particularly interested", but
that there's no interest from any developers this DPL looks at.

Thanks for the clarification.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: