Hmmmm. I wonder what the SPDX answer is for "copyright license on a logo that really should be trademark guidelines"...
Tom On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:41 PM Miro Hrončok <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14. 05. 20 18:37, Tom Callaway wrote: > > In this case, this is a logo, which is also a trademark (though, not a > > registered one as far as I can see). > > > > Since the software does not require the logo to be present (or to be > more > > specific, the software _license_ does not require this), and there are > no > > restrictions on distribution (only modification), it seems to me that > this logo > > presents no real risk or burden to our users or downstream. > Additionally, it is > > noteworthy that the Fedora logos (and other FOSS logos such as the > Firefox and > > Chromium logo) are part of Fedora with similar restrictions on modifying > them. > > Ideally, these restrictions would be separated from the copyright > licensing (as > > they would be more applicable as trademark use guidelines), but the > intent is clear. > > > > Assuming that Richard Fontana agrees, I would be inclined to clarify our > stance > > on permissible content (as found here: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:What_Can_Be_Packaged) > to > > call out the following as another example of permissible content: > > > > * Logos/trademarks are permissible, as long as all of the following > conditions > > are met: > > A. The logo/trademark files are distributed by the owner (or with the > clear > > and explicit permission of the owner) > > B. The logo/trademark files are distributable by third-parties. > > C. The logo/trademark files have a direct relationship to software > under an > > acceptable license that is present in Fedora (or about to be added at > the same time) > > D. Any existing trademark guidelines/restrictions/rules on the > > logos/trademarks do not prevent Fedora (or anyone) from fully exercising > the > > rights given them in the licensing on the associated software. > > Permission to modify is not required for logos/trademarks, but their use > must > > NOT be contingent upon restrictions that would conflict with the license > terms > > of the associated software. Two examples: > > 1. The associated software may require the removal or replacement of the > > logos/trademarks if the software is modified. Removing/replacing the > logos does > > not prevent Fedora (or anyone) from fully exercising the rights given to > them in > > the FOSS software license. In this case, the software and the logos > would be > > permissible, but the logos may have to be removed/replaced if Fedora (or > anyone > > downstream) makes modifications to the software. Packagers in such a > situation > > should be especially careful. > > 2. The software license cannot require the logos/trademarks to be used > in the > > software and simultaneously have trademark guidelines that only permit > use on > > unmodified versions of the software. In this scenario, neither the logos > nor the > > software would be permissible in Fedora. > > If you're not sure if a logo/trademark is acceptable for inclusion, feel > free to > > bring the specific situation to the attention of Fedora Legal for review. > > > > **** > > Under these criteria, the lua logo would be acceptable (as would the > existing > > Firefox/Chromium logos). > > > > Thoughts? > > This is exactly the rule I assumed we already had but couldn't find. > Thanks. > > BTW If this goes fine, what would I put in License? GPLv2 and Lua Logo? > > -- > Miro Hrončok > -- > Phone: +420777974800 > IRC: mhroncok > >
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
