* Benoît Knecht <benoit.kne...@fsfe.org> [110606 11:57]:
> I had a look at these, and I'm pretty sure they're not eligible for
> copyright protection (a white 'N' on a blue background is not nearly
> creative enough). So I don't think there's a problem there; the license
> header should just be corrected to state that there's no copyright on
> this particular logo. What do you think?
Removing the copyright notice is extremly dangerous. It's the only thing
universally forbidden even before the copyright-mafia successfully lobbied
for more in many countries.
So ideally the copyright holder would have to do it (or at least the one
having written the copyright notice), but then it is easier to just add
some permissive license to it.
Also note that the "not eligible for copyright" is a very hard question
if looking at more than one country. Ironically the most problematic
countries might be those that have historically high requirements on
creativity for work to be protected (as the general "needs creativity"
rule has to be lifted for software in order to have any commercial
software to be eligible)
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20110606172032.ga12...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
