On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
...
> That was what I would have said, if Simon didn't put it so eloquently.
> So +1 for a permissive license for the artwork itself, we can control
> its usage through the GNOME trademark.
>
Thanks for the contributions so far.
The main t
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 12:43 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 at 00:52:25 +, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> > There has been many instances of us protecting our brand by asking
> > people to
> > stop using our logo for commercial purposes, CC-BY-SA/LGPLv3 does
> > grant
> > precisely th
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 at 00:52:25 +, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> There has been many instances of us protecting our brand by asking people to
> stop using our logo for commercial purposes, CC-BY-SA/LGPLv3 does grant
> precisely the right to use it commercially.
There are two things a third party needs
Hey Meg,
I am curious, is there any particular reason why we want to open the logo
beyond the current fair use protection?
It seems to me that by opening it we may be enabling unpredictable harming
uses of our most important piece of identity. I do not think it is
comparable to GTK or icon themes
Hi,
Recently the licensing of the GNOME logo has come up in board discussions.
The asset is currently trademarked but we do not have a license for it as
far as we can determine [0]. We would like to propose licensing the asset
with dual LGPLv3/CC-BY-SA-4.0. This is similar to the license used by t
