On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 06:26:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > People have asked "why isn't the official use logo DFSG-free?" on > > > > > > As far as I remember, the conclusion has always been "It should be; > > > we're inappropriately using copyrights to enforce a trademark > > > restriction". > > > > > > We could instead leave the logo unencumbered by copyright, so that > > > people can derive their own logos from it, while enforcing our trademark, > > > so that people aren't allowed to use it to create confusion between > > > their work and ours. > > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > > > However, I'd wonder how a logo with a trademark-enforced restriction of > > "unauthorized projects only" or similar would be DFSG-free? I'd suppose > > it would fall under the "if you change this, change the name" allowances; > > "if you change this product, change the logo". I'm not sure if that's > > free, though. > > I agree with Richard; I think we should leave the Open Use logo > basically unencumbered by copyright (or bust it down to a MIT/X11-ish > copyright so that the person who designed the logo remains credited), > and maybe by trademark as well. We probably don't want to do either > with the Official Logo.
I'm confused. I interpreted Richard as saying that the Official Logo could be unrestricted by copyright, with the only restrictions on its use being made under trademark law, and that doing so could render it DFSG-free while still preserving its function. I didn't quite understand how those restrictions could be free. You seem to be disagreeing with Richard, saying that we probably want the Official Logo to be restricted by both copyright and trademark. (I agree that the Official Logo is inherently non-free, and that the Open Use Logo should be under a simple, permissive license.) -- Glenn Maynard
