>-----Original Message----- >From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 1:53 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Ray Jenson; freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Demon license? > > >[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] > >Incorrect text wrapping > >On Monday, 18 July 2005 at 1:12:12 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) >> On Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:14 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > >No I didn't. I wrote this on Monday, 18 Jul 2005 08:44:03. > >>> The daemon is copyright of Kirk McKusick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. >>> You should ask him for permission. In general he gives it if the >>> usage is BSD-related, as it appears to be in this case. >> >> Strictly speaking, the IMAGES of the daemon that are on the >> mckusick.com website are what is copyrighted. Nothing is stopping >> someone from drawing a 'devil' image and associating it with >> FreeBSD. > >I no longer speak for the FreeBSD project, but we have never wanted to >be associated with devils. I'm sure we would object if someone drew a >'devil' image and associated it with FreeBSD. >
Oh, you must think yourself very clever for that bit of deliberate misinterpretation. I hope you don't let it go to your head. On a more serious note, the userbase is objecting to certain members of The Project wanting to jettison the daemon image, and replace it with an image of a stuffed Teddy Bear (or something equally politically correct) so in the absense of the Project having much respect for what the userbase wants in the area of FreeBSD images, you can hardly expect the userbase to have much respect for what the Project wants in the area of FreeBSD images, now can you? The phrase "daemon image" in the context of a sentence about FreeBSD carries a very specific connotation of one of Kirks images, that image that I mentioned in my prior post. (and is in fact at the top of the FreeBSD project webpage) If I had said: "Nothing is stopping someone from drawing a daemon image" that would have been interpreted as advocating copyright infringement due to the connotation, because it would have been read as making a likeness that is very similar to Beastie. It would have been incorrect since that was not what I meant. However, what I said gets the idea across that the image I'm talking about would be closer to one of the daemons that are on the USENIX copyrighted images that were linked. Thus not infringing on Kirk's image, yet still getting the "daemon association" across. (not "devil association") Actually, it is ironic that over the years that Kirk's image has been so strongly identified with FreeBSD. The agitators in the FreeBSD project that want to jettison it are falling all over themselves to carefully explain how that image really isn't a logo for FreeBSD, and really isn't so strongly identified with FreeBSD. Yet we all know different, as your post admits - since if Kirk's beastie image wasn't identified as "the FreeBSD logo image" by the userbase, you never would have jumped to Beastie's defense. But if in fact a succession of "beastie images" had been in current use, instead of Kirks one very fine image, it would have diluted the "shock value" of the Beastie image, and probably would have removed the main objection the "anti-Beastie" group has to the strong identification of a Devil to FreeBSD. (since it would be expected that people would use whatever imagery they preferred, rather than toeing the line to use the One True Beastie image that Kirk copyrighted) Ted _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"