On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:12:42AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > We can provide the logo under a free copyright license but fairly strict > trademark license. A restrictive copyright license prevents legitimate > modifications as well, which isn't what we want.
It's not clear whether a work which is affected by a "strict" trademark license is DFSG-free. I don't think much headway has ever been made on figuring out how trademarks and the DFSG interact, probably because there hasn't been much need (the logos clearly havn't been sufficient). I suspect the Mozilla issue may make that happen, though. My intuition is that the Open Use logo should be under a Free copyright license and no trademark, and allowed in main, and the Official Use logo should be under a strict trademark license, and not allowed in main. It doesn't seem to make sense that a logo with a license (of any sort) that says "this image can only be used for these purposes" belongs in main, even Debian's. I don't know if Mozilla-in-Debian should be renamed to avoid the trademark entirely, or if it's acceptable for a work in main to be affected by a non-free trademark license if it's readily changed. As long as it's an easy change, it feels like a change-of-name requirement, eg. DFSG#4. At a glance, that seems contradictory: a trademarked logo not allowed, but a trademarked name allowed. But one's a work in itself, with restrictions on that work (the logo), and the other is a name, which we allow requirements to change. It also seems to make sense from a licensing standpoint: people will frequently be told that "renaming requirements" in a copyright license are pointless, since someone can always create an independant work which is easily confused with that work (eg. fork sendmail and call it "Postfix"), and that trademarks are the correct approach. So, it seems to make sense that DFSG#4 allow implementing change-of-name requirements via trademark. I'm not certain about any of this, though. -- Glenn Maynard