Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict > the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
Trademark law limits what can be done here. Granting a trademark license (explicitly or implicitly) that allows people to use the trademark for any purpose is likely to result in the loss of the trademark. The trademark license would only apply in cases where there /is/ a potential trademark issue - in all other cases, copyright law would already apply. Granting the right to use and modify an image of a trademark without providing a license to use the trademark would be more restrictive than the licenses suggested above, but is something that I don't think we've really considered in the past. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]