Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 06:43:32PM +0100, Eric Kow wrote:
action, we should be left with a GPL licensed logo, much
like the Mercurial folks:
http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2008-October/021875.html
And that might be OK too as a fall-back most-conservative license that
we could relax on a case-by-case basis...
IANAL, but I believe that you are confusing copyright licensing with
trademark licensing.
At this point, I think the assumption is that _both_ are up for grabs.
Now that we have the Oversight + Conservancy we, as the darcs community,
have the opportunity to seek a stronger trademark and deeper control of
when, where, and how the logo is used. That would be trademark/policy.
On the copyright side the GPL isn't considered a good license for
artwork, so we have the opportunity to, for instance, push it into a
(more liberal) Creative Commons copyright license. The copyright and
trademark/policy ultimately work hand in hand, so we might as well get
both right.
Questions we can ask:
Is darcs a strong "brand" that deserves a strong (possibly, registered)
trademark?
Should the logo only be used for "project-approved" reasons?
My own suggestions would be to explicitly license the CC by-sa license
(attribution, share-alike), which honors the GPL intention of copyleft,
but is a better well-recognized license for art.
As for trademark/policy I don't see a reason to strongly trademark the
logo (darcs isn't Firefox) and I think the logo should be allowed to be
used liberally under whichever copyright license is chosen, with perhaps
only a liability disclaimer that use of the logo does not imply any
direct relationship with darcs itself. But IANAL and even that might not
be necessary.
--
--Max Battcher--
http://worldmaker.net
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
