Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > please keep the Cc: on any replies.
> > When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the > > entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently > > interpreted it this way. > > For documentation I can still understand the reasoning but a logo? > A logo in order to be a a logo has to be very strictly defined. A long > time ago I used to work for Merrill Lynch. They had a thick book of > guidelines about how the logo could be used. In fact everytime we did a > website the logo usage had to cleared by lawyers. A comparison can be > made to a license. Just because the GPL says "Everyone is permitted to > copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing > it is not allowed." does that make any packages containing it non-free? > It is totally legitimate for the Debian logo to be much more restricted > than software or even documentation. Right, but that's not the issue. It isn't whether the logo license allows its use in Debian packages, it whether main allows non-free logos. Current concensus says it does not. Everything in main should be free. > > I'm not discussing the legality of your distribution of the official > > logo, merely the fact that the offical logo is not free. > > > > So make it free then (If you don't find my argument above persuasive.) > Unlike the GNU documentation case (where I note we are exercising a lot of > patience before chucking things out) we control the logo and its license. > I don't think any GR or anything would be necessary either. In fact > probably anyone with CVS access to the web pages could do it. > > I think its the height of absurdity that Debian can't even use its own > logo in its own packages. I'd like to see that fixed. Work is progressing on making the unofficial logo DSFG-compliant. Then you will be able to use that one instead. Peter