On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:11:57 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > To use them as long as there's no confusion going on. > > If a logo means endorsement, you cannot use it on non endorsed > > products. > > If the license works like this, I cannot take the official logo > and use it to promote my car repair business. > > I thought the whole idea was that I *could* put the Official Use > logo on anything, as long as I didn't falsely pretend my product > was endorsed. My car repair business has nothing to do with > the Debian Project, no one will be confused about the origin of > my service and I do not pretend I am an affiliate of Debian. > > If you do want to permit this, there won't be much difference > between the Official and the Open logo anymore. > > If you don't want to permit this, then maybe this open trademark > license is not the right choice. You need some pretty tough > usage restrictions if you want to control the official use logo > to that extent.
OK, I think I begin to see your point and which is the question the Debian Project has to answer: should people be allowed to use the Official Use Logo on anything, as long as endorsement is not claimed? I think I must stop for a while and wait for some opinions from DDs (which I am not...), before going on with the proposed trademark license text. Also, a clarification by Nathanael on what he meant to achieve with his original proposal would be useful: Nathanael, did you intend to allow or forbid the above-outlined scenario? -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpwAo0mSBoQw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
