On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 04:55:03PM +0000, Johan Sundstr�m (Achtung Liebe!) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote: > Odd; I never seemed to have posted this, when the topic was fresh:
well, this kind of topic never goes stale. and the original motivation (to clarify the license for the wikipedia article and other uses) is also still valid. > > i would also like to clarify the license of the logo images on > > http://pike.ida.liu.se/download/logotype/ > > > > i believe there is no problem with making them gpl or mpl since they > > are protected by a trademark anyways. > > Have you ever seen a project whose identity material is GPL? (Not a > rhethorical question, mind you; I just find it very hard to picture, > so I ask from curiosity -- examples would be of interest to me.) the debian logo has two versions: http://www.debian.org/logos/ one with very restricted use (more restriced than the current pike logo) and one for open use. > >From my point of view, making identity stuff like logos free for > anyone to reuse for their own purposes in any way is saying "we don't > mind anyone (ab)using pike logos et cetera to give stuff like malware, > spam senders and other treacherous software some of our good name and > credibility". well, no, because even if the logo source (the svg, eps or whatever file) is under the gpl, the fact that the logo is trademarked should still prevent the above case. if i make my own version of the pike logo, then i own the copyright of that and i still can do with it what i want, except, because my version looks similar the original, the trademark on the logo prevents me from exercising my copyright to its full extent. (i can not use my logo in a way that would make it represent different software, but i could use it to represent washing powder. i could not use the original logo currently because of the copyright, but the buyer of the washing powder that would not really matter) > As I understand free licenses, the point is to allow anyone to fork it > and let the code live on under new maintainership, without any prior > agreements with anyone, granted that the new regime makes up their own > name and brand for the fork, so the old project can keep running its > operation just as usual, and the two projects can even compete and be > on friendly terms with one another, without seeding confusion about > what is what. i am not asking to use the pike logo for a fork of pike, but to represent it in a wikipedia article. for that it is not necesary to have it under a public license, however it would at least be nice if the current license could be clarified. greetings, martin.
