Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: I think it might be http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debian-desktop/packages/tags/desktop-base/6.0.5/splash/nightly-splash.png (sorry it seems that inline view is broken there). Just for reference: that can be fixed by running svn ps svn:mime-type image/png nightly-splash.png (or 'svn ps svn:mime-type image/png *png', you get the idea...) It's currently set to application/octet-stream, which tells a browser that it's not anything useful, and viewvc uses that information when serving it to a client. -- The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by the following formula: pi zz a -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
[ Adding ftpmaster to Cc. ftpmaster: please check bug log for context ]
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:32:05AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
I think I’m going to leave the Debian Project Leader deal with this.
Stefano, I’ll let you read the bug log . Maybe you’ll want to ask the
FTP masters too, since they are ultimately responsible for inclusion
rules.
Ah, dear old can of worms^W^W^W interaction among trademark, FOSS
licenses, and DFSG.
I'm under the impression that we don't have a clear cut policy on
whether DFSG apply to trademark restrictions as well as to software
licenses. I believe it has been judged on a case by case basis by FTP
master. ... but I might be very wrong about this, so I'm getting FTP
masters in the loop for clarification.
The case of the Debian logo which has been mentioned in this bug log is
actually something we are not happy with, because on one hand we want to
protect debian trademark, but on the other we really don't want some of
our official logos to be non-DFSG free (as they currently are). We would
love to have trademark protection *and* a DFSG-free license, but we have
been advised in the past that doing such a re-licensing might pose
danger to the trademark itself.
In that respect, a mutual agreement among Debian and GNOME is not going
to help on the Debian side, given that DFSG §8 is very clear on the fact
that license must not be specific to Debian.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:32:05AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Hi, Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 17:44 -0400, Karen Sandler a écrit : Ah, I see the confusion here - the logos identified on that page are the marks that have been registered, but GNOME, like Debian, has trademark rights in logos that it uses even if it hasn't registered them. And the usage policy covers all logos and other marks. Of course, if a mark is not covered by a policy or the like granting permission for use then you'd have an even more restricted range of things you could do with it. Thanks for the precision. So, I understand the policy applies to the logo in gnome-icon-theme as well. At the very least it would be appreciated if it was mentioned in the gnome-icon-theme package that the LGPL doesn’t actually apply to start-here.svg. The LGPL does apply there. You are free to derive the file to create something that is not the GNOME mark. Or something that is the GNOME mark and fulfils the trademark license. You could also derive anything that is LGPL (or any other free license) and turn it into a GNOME logo and would still need to comply with GNOME trademark license. That still wouldn't make the original file that wasn't the GNOME logo non-LGPL... That's a bit of a stretch but the point is : copyright and trademark are two separate aspects, and a trademark license doesn't change the copyright license. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
On Wed, June 29, 2011 4:39 am, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [ Adding ftpmaster to Cc. ftpmaster: please check bug log for context ] On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:32:05AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: I think Iâm going to leave the Debian Project Leader deal with this. Stefano, Iâll let you read the bug log . Maybe youâll want to ask the FTP masters too, since they are ultimately responsible for inclusion rules. Ah, dear old can of worms^W^W^W interaction among trademark, FOSS licenses, and DFSG. I'm under the impression that we don't have a clear cut policy on whether DFSG apply to trademark restrictions as well as to software licenses. I believe it has been judged on a case by case basis by FTP master. ... but I might be very wrong about this, so I'm getting FTP masters in the loop for clarification. OK! As you know, it's a tough line to walk - free software projects like Gnome have adopted permissive trademark policies to allow the software to be distributed freely while hopefully keeping some trademark protection to prevent predatory use of the marks. The case of the Debian logo which has been mentioned in this bug log is actually something we are not happy with, because on one hand we want to protect debian trademark, but on the other we really don't want some of our official logos to be non-DFSG free (as they currently are). We would love to have trademark protection *and* a DFSG-free license, but we have been advised in the past that doing such a re-licensing might pose danger to the trademark itself. Exactly! This is the same problem that all truly free software projects wrestle with, which permissive use guidelines try to address. In that respect, a mutual agreement among Debian and GNOME is not going to help on the Debian side, given that DFSG §8 is very clear on the fact that license must not be specific to Debian. Actually, what I was saying could work was a license agreement to create a new mark, but then the establishment of a joint trademark policy that permitted its use for everyone, as the Gnome guidelines do now. The mark we're discussing is a new one that uses both Gnome and Debian marks, and one which could be confusing and weaken both of them if not dealt with carefully. Honestly, the mark is different enough (but clearly a use of the Gnome mark) that Gnome will have to evaluate its position on it anyway. I just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page, and that there was no question about the removal of the regular Gnome foot logo by Debian (as opposed to the new combined mark), which should be fine to use. The trademark laws are frustrating, but they really are aimed at making sure that some proprietary software vendor can't come along and put our logos on its software and confuse users into thinking that it's free because it's branded to look like us. Trademark is such a pain, but hopefully in the worst case it won't be too big of a deal to just remove the new combined mark if we all want to avoid all of this. karen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 22:18 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Hello GNOME foundation licensing team, I am a user and contributor of the Debian distribution. I have a question about the GNOME foot Logo. The desktop-base Debian package includes an image which is derived from the GNOME foot Logo. I am currently trying to properly document the copyright and license of the GNOME foot Logo, but I wasn't able to find official information. Information is at: http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/guidelines/ and http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/index.html Did you read the guidelines? What does your combined logo look like? If the combined work looks like it's merging the GNOME logo with another logo, it wouldn't be fine to use. Cheers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 10:48 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : The desktop-base Debian package includes an image which is derived from the GNOME foot Logo. I am currently trying to properly document the copyright and license of the GNOME foot Logo, but I wasn't able to find official information. Information is at: http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/guidelines/ and http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/index.html Did you read the guidelines? What does your combined logo look like? If the combined work looks like it's merging the GNOME logo with another logo, it wouldn't be fine to use. It is my impression by reading the guidelines that the foot logo without the GNOME text (as shipped by gnome-about) isn’t subject to the same terms as the one with the text (as shipped by gnome-icon-theme). This would be similar to what we have for the Debian swirl. So to be more precise, we’d like to know what are the rules (both trademark and copyright) for the GNOME foot logo without the GNOME text under it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 14:20 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 10:48 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : The desktop-base Debian package includes an image which is derived from the GNOME foot Logo. I am currently trying to properly document the copyright and license of the GNOME foot Logo, but I wasn't able to find official information. Information is at: http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/guidelines/ and http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/index.html Did you read the guidelines? What does your combined logo look like? If the combined work looks like it's merging the GNOME logo with another logo, it wouldn't be fine to use. It is my impression by reading the guidelines that the foot logo without the GNOME text (as shipped by gnome-about) isn’t subject to the same terms as the one with the text (as shipped by gnome-icon-theme). This would be similar to what we have for the Debian swirl. So to be more precise, we’d like to know what are the rules (both trademark and copyright) for the GNOME foot logo without the GNOME text under it. Again, we'd like to see the logo you're referring to. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 13:45 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : It is my impression by reading the guidelines that the foot logo without the GNOME text (as shipped by gnome-about) isn’t subject to the same terms as the one with the text (as shipped by gnome-icon-theme). This would be similar to what we have for the Debian swirl. So to be more precise, we’d like to know what are the rules (both trademark and copyright) for the GNOME foot logo without the GNOME text under it. Again, we'd like to see the logo you're referring to. I think Francesco is talking about things like the logo on http://pkg-gnome.alioth.debian.org/ (I don’t find it in desktop-base though, maybe we ship it in gnome-icon-theme instead.) -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 15:01 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 13:45 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : It is my impression by reading the guidelines that the foot logo without the GNOME text (as shipped by gnome-about) isn’t subject to the same terms as the one with the text (as shipped by gnome-icon-theme). This would be similar to what we have for the Debian swirl. So to be more precise, we’d like to know what are the rules (both trademark and copyright) for the GNOME foot logo without the GNOME text under it. Again, we'd like to see the logo you're referring to. I think Francesco is talking about things like the logo on http://pkg-gnome.alioth.debian.org/ (I don’t find it in desktop-base though, maybe we ship it in gnome-icon-theme instead.) This sort of thing is absolutely forbidden, as per the licensing rules I referenced earlier. From http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/guidelines/: Do not combine or use a GNOME Trademark with your company's product or service name or any other term unless you have written permission to do so. Use of GNOME Trademarks in that sort of way would NOT be a fair use. I really don't see us making an exception for such a dilution of our trademark and logo. You can put the 2 logos side-by-side, but it puts the Debian logo (if it is trademarked) under as much threat as it would the GNOME one. Cheers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
On mar., 2011-06-28 at 15:01 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 13:45 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : It is my impression by reading the guidelines that the foot logo without the GNOME text (as shipped by gnome-about) isn’t subject to the same terms as the one with the text (as shipped by gnome-icon-theme). This would be similar to what we have for the Debian swirl. So to be more precise, we’d like to know what are the rules (both trademark and copyright) for the GNOME foot logo without the GNOME text under it. Again, we'd like to see the logo you're referring to. I think Francesco is talking about things like the logo on http://pkg-gnome.alioth.debian.org/ (I don’t find it in desktop-base though, maybe we ship it in gnome-icon-theme instead.) I think it might be http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debian-desktop/packages/tags/desktop-base/6.0.5/splash/nightly-splash.png (sorry it seems that inline view is broken there). -- Yves-Alexis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 14:18 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : I think Francesco is talking about things like the logo on http://pkg-gnome.alioth.debian.org/ (I don’t find it in desktop-base though, maybe we ship it in gnome-icon-theme instead.) This sort of thing is absolutely forbidden, as per the licensing rules I referenced earlier. From http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/guidelines/: Do not combine or use a GNOME Trademark with your company's product or service name or any other term unless you have written permission to do so. Use of GNOME Trademarks in that sort of way would NOT be a fair use. I really don't see us making an exception for such a dilution of our trademark and logo. You can put the 2 logos side-by-side, but it puts the Debian logo (if it is trademarked) under as much threat as it would the GNOME one. So this means the guidelines also apply to the logo without the “GNOME” text. This means we will have to remove any files containing the logo from our packages, per the Debian guidelines. I’d really like to avoid that since the impact is far more important than the pair of packages we are talking about at the moment. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 15:58 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 14:18 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : I think Francesco is talking about things like the logo on http://pkg-gnome.alioth.debian.org/ (I don’t find it in desktop-base though, maybe we ship it in gnome-icon-theme instead.) This sort of thing is absolutely forbidden, as per the licensing rules I referenced earlier. From http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/guidelines/: Do not combine or use a GNOME Trademark with your company's product or service name or any other term unless you have written permission to do so. Use of GNOME Trademarks in that sort of way would NOT be a fair use. I really don't see us making an exception for such a dilution of our trademark and logo. You can put the 2 logos side-by-side, but it puts the Debian logo (if it is trademarked) under as much threat as it would the GNOME one. So this means the guidelines also apply to the logo without the “GNOME” text. This means we will have to remove any files containing the logo from our packages, per the Debian guidelines. I’d really like to avoid that since the impact is far more important than the pair of packages we are talking about at the moment. The GNOME logo, with and without text underneath it, is copyrighted. It's still unbelievably unclear what exact logo uses you're referring to. Combined works like this one: http://pkg-gnome.alioth.debian.org/images/gnome-debian-small-trans.png are unquestionably wrong. They will need to be removed indeed. Reworks of the GNOME logo need discussion, both with the lawyers and the people who worked on the original branding guidelines. This includes things like this splash screen: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debian-desktop/packages/tags/desktop-base/6.0.5/splash/nightly-splash.png Cheers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 15:06 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : This means we will have to remove any files containing the logo from our packages, per the Debian guidelines. I’d really like to avoid that since the impact is far more important than the pair of packages we are talking about at the moment. The GNOME logo, with and without text underneath it, is copyrighted. It's still unbelievably unclear what exact logo uses you're referring to. And it is still unbelievably unclear what exact copyright rules apply for the GNOME logo and what trademark rules apply. As far as copyright is concerned, gnome-icon-theme mentions all icons (including the GNOME foot) are dual-licensed under the LGPL v3 and CC-BY-SA 3.0. http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-icon-theme/tree/src/start-here.svg As far as trademark rules are concerned, the rules you mentioned do not mention any other version of the GNOME logo than the one with the GNOME text. http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/ We are talking here about applying the rights that the LGPL grants, on a logo that is not subject to your trademark rules. So until this conversation, we naively thought such works were not a problem. Combined works like this one: http://pkg-gnome.alioth.debian.org/images/gnome-debian-small-trans.png are unquestionably wrong. They will need to be removed indeed. If such works are not permitted this means the foot logo without text is not free software and we will have to remove it from our repositories as per DFSG#3. I’d like to have an official stance from the GNOME foundation before introducing such a drastic, useless and time-consuming change. I’d also appreciate if we could discuss this kind of issues face-to-face with specialists because they are obviously too complex to be dealt with by a pair of emails. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
Hi Josselin, I'm a bit new to GNOME (just started as ED last week), so bear with me. I do have a legal background though, so hopefully we can get this sorted out in a quick and friendly way! On Tue, June 28, 2011 10:31 am, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 15:06 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : This means we will have to remove any files containing the logo from our packages, per the Debian guidelines. Iâd really like to avoid that since the impact is far more important than the pair of packages we are talking about at the moment. The GNOME logo, with and without text underneath it, is copyrighted. It's still unbelievably unclear what exact logo uses you're referring to. And it is still unbelievably unclear what exact copyright rules apply for the GNOME logo and what trademark rules apply. As far as copyright is concerned, gnome-icon-theme mentions all icons (including the GNOME foot) are dual-licensed under the LGPL v3 and CC-BY-SA 3.0. http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-icon-theme/tree/src/start-here.svg As far as trademark rules are concerned, the rules you mentioned do not mention any other version of the GNOME logo than the one with the GNOME text. http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/ We are talking here about applying the rights that the LGPL grants, on a logo that is not subject to your trademark rules. So until this conversation, we naively thought such works were not a problem. Ah, I see the confusion here - the logos identified on that page are the marks that have been registered, but GNOME, like Debian, has trademark rights in logos that it uses even if it hasn't registered them. And the usage policy covers all logos and other marks. Of course, if a mark is not covered by a policy or the like granting permission for use then you'd have an even more restricted range of things you could do with it. Combined works like this one: http://pkg-gnome.alioth.debian.org/images/gnome-debian-small-trans.png are unquestionably wrong. They will need to be removed indeed. If such works are not permitted this means the foot logo without text is not free software and we will have to remove it from our repositories as per DFSG#3. Iâd like to have an official stance from the GNOME foundation before introducing such a drastic, useless and time-consuming change. Iâd also appreciate if we could discuss this kind of issues face-to-face with specialists because they are obviously too complex to be dealt with by a pair of emails. I don't think your conclusion is right, and I actually bet that if the tables were turned, Debian would have a problem if GNOME created a mark like that and started using it. Though I can't tell what Debian's current policy is, I don't believe either of the trademark policies marked proposed would allow it. The usage guidelines explicitly permit all of the uses necessary for the foot logo to be used with free software, and like all free software trademark policies I'm familiar with, is aimed at preventing confusing uses. (I also note that the Debian swirl isn't a registered mark but I believe Debian would expect folks not to use it in a way that confused people about whether they were getting a Debian distro or something else.) This use is actually the use of both marks in the creation of a new mark, which could indeed be very confusing. That being said, GNOME and Debian are working towards the same goals and if both organizations agree to that particular use of their marks, they can permit it and create a license for it, with its own policy which would prevent it from confusing the marketplace. GNOME will consider this situation in more detail. Has Debian considered this in relation to the use of their own mark in a different and potentially confusing way? karen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
Hi, Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 17:44 -0400, Karen Sandler a écrit : Ah, I see the confusion here - the logos identified on that page are the marks that have been registered, but GNOME, like Debian, has trademark rights in logos that it uses even if it hasn't registered them. And the usage policy covers all logos and other marks. Of course, if a mark is not covered by a policy or the like granting permission for use then you'd have an even more restricted range of things you could do with it. Thanks for the precision. So, I understand the policy applies to the logo in gnome-icon-theme as well. At the very least it would be appreciated if it was mentioned in the gnome-icon-theme package that the LGPL doesn’t actually apply to start-here.svg. I don't think your conclusion is right, and I actually bet that if the tables were turned, Debian would have a problem if GNOME created a mark like that and started using it. Though I can't tell what Debian's current policy is, I don't believe either of the trademark policies marked proposed would allow it. The usage guidelines explicitly permit all of the uses necessary for the foot logo to be used with free software, and like all free software trademark policies I'm familiar with, is aimed at preventing confusing uses. (I also note that the Debian swirl isn't a registered mark but I believe Debian would expect folks not to use it in a way that confused people about whether they were getting a Debian distro or something else.) This use is actually the use of both marks in the creation of a new mark, which could indeed be very confusing. The Debian logos have different policies depending on the logo: http://www.debian.org/logos/ We used to deal very badly with our own mark, but now that our policies have been fixed, the open use logo without the Debian text is clearly the only one which is compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and as such it is the only one we allow in the distribution itself. TTBOMK we regularly remove artwork and/or trademarked logos from some of our packages so that the rules are the same for everyone. It would probably be best if we could avoid to do that with GNOME. That being said, GNOME and Debian are working towards the same goals and if both organizations agree to that particular use of their marks, they can permit it and create a license for it, with its own policy which would prevent it from confusing the marketplace. GNOME will consider this situation in more detail. I think I’m going to leave the Debian Project Leader deal with this. Stefano, I’ll let you read the bug log . Maybe you’ll want to ask the FTP masters too, since they are ultimately responsible for inclusion rules. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
Hello GNOME foundation licensing team, I am a user and contributor of the Debian distribution. I have a question about the GNOME foot Logo. The desktop-base Debian package includes an image which is derived from the GNOME foot Logo. I am currently trying to properly document the copyright and license of the GNOME foot Logo, but I wasn't able to find official information. According to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gnomelogo.svgoldid=39892275 the GNOME foot Logo is released under the LGPL v2.1 or later. However, despite some searches on GNOME official web sites, I was not able to find any clear copyright notice (with years and copyright holders) for the Logo, or any clear statement on the copyright license and license version(s). Could you please send me the exact copyright notice and permission notice for the GNOME foot Logo? Please keep 607...@bugs.debian.org in Cc:, so that your reply is publicly shown on the Debian bug report. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. All the best. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp52lSIL99ux.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
Hello GNOME foundation licensing team, I am a user and contributor of the Debian distribution. I have a question about the GNOME foot Logo. The desktop-base Debian package includes an image which is derived from the GNOME foot Logo. I am currently trying to properly document the copyright and license of the GNOME foot Logo, but I wasn't able to find official information. According to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gnomelogo.svgoldid=39892275 the GNOME foot Logo is released under the LGPL v2.1 or later. However, despite some searches on GNOME official web sites, I was not able to find any clear copyright notice (with years and copyright holders) for the Logo, or any clear statement on the copyright license and license version(s). Could you please send me the exact copyright notice and permission notice for the GNOME foot Logo? Please keep 607...@bugs.debian.org in Cc:, so that your reply is publicly shown on the Debian bug report. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. All the best. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpeIFEUiwgSk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#607839: Question about copyright/license of the GNOME foot Logo
Hello GNOME foundation licensing team, I am a user and contributor of the Debian distribution. I have a question about the GNOME foot Logo. The desktop-base Debian package includes an image which is derived from the GNOME foot Logo. I am currently trying to properly document the copyright and license of the GNOME foot Logo, but I wasn't able to find official information. According to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gnomelogo.svgoldid=39892275 the GNOME foot Logo is released under the LGPL v2.1 or later. However, despite some searches on GNOME official web sites, I was not able to find any clear copyright notice (with years and copyright holders) for the Logo, or any clear statement on the copyright license and license version(s). Could you please send me the exact copyright notice and permission notice for the GNOME foot Logo? Please keep 607...@bugs.debian.org in Cc:, so that your reply is publicly shown on the Debian bug report. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. All the best. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpLmu2Ztv9v1.pgp Description: PGP signature
