Re: Debian logo its license
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 07:26:19AM -, Robert Woodcock wrote: Avery Pennarun wrote: What if someone gets hold of the Linux kernel and uses it to guide nuclear missiles? (Well, at least they have to share their changes with us :)) Only if they distribute the control systems : You've forgotten something. The military act as if they are above any laws. (If they cared about obeying laws, they would be disarming nuclear weapons under their international treaty obligations) Sorry to be political. Andrew
Way, way off-topic was: Re: Debian logo its license
Andrew writes: You've forgotten something. The military act as if they are above any laws. (If they cared about obeying laws, they would be disarming nuclear weapons under their international treaty obligations) On the contrary. The military, at least in the US and the UK, act in accordance with the laws of their respective nations, which require them to obey the civilian governments. It is those governments, not the military, that are signatories to treaties (not that I know of any that require nuclear disarmament). -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Re: Way, way off-topic was: Re: Debian logo its license
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:33:30AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: You've forgotten something. The military act as if they are above any laws. (If they cared about obeying laws, they would be disarming nuclear weapons under their international treaty obligations) On the contrary. The military, at least in the US and the UK, act in accordance with the laws of their respective nations, which require them to obey the civilian governments. It is those governments, not the military, that are signatories to treaties (not that I know of any that require nuclear disarmament). Just keep telling yourself that.. = -- I'm working in the dark here. Yeah well rumor has it you do your best work in the dark. -- Earth: Final Conflict
Re: Debian logo its license
Andrew G . Feinberg writes: Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_? I wrote: We don't. Darren Benham writes: Of course we do. Otherwise we'd have to grant permission to every tom-dick-harry that wanted to use it in any way-shape-form. I meant, of course, that we don't need an elaborate specially written license with elaborate restrictions. Debian grants permission to every tom-dick-harry that wants to use this logo in any way-shape-form would be quite adequate. Or don't license it: just use it on Debian stuff and grant individual licenses on a case by case basis. I doubt that you will be swamped by all the requests. What does FreeBSD do about their logo (or mascot, or whatever)? -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 06:20:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Or don't license it: just use it on Debian stuff and grant individual licenses on a case by case basis. I doubt that you will be swamped by all the requests. I'm glad to see you volunteer to take respond to requests that come in and check up that they are using the logo in a responsible way. Even with the existing license (and a valid expiry date) I have probably handled 20 requests for use of the logo in the last 6 months. I will be rather happy to see a permanent license in place. Jay Treacy
Re: Debian logo its license
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:35:50PM -0600, Andrew G . Feinberg wrote: Larry Ewing and Tux. You don't see him writing a license, do you? The picture of Tux is licensed freely for any use as long as Larry Ewing is mentioned. Don't know about modification, though. On http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/linux/index.html, it states Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me [EMAIL PROTECTED] and The GIMP if someone asks. Andrew Dvorak. Experience is the worst teacher; you fail the test first and learn the instructions afterwards. --Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Re: Debian logo its license
James A. Treacy writes: Even with the existing license (and a valid expiry date) I have probably handled 20 requests for use of the logo in the last 6 months. Doesn't seem like many considering that the present license encourages requests. Do you really think that forty people a year would enquire about using a logo which has not been offered to them? I will be rather happy to see a permanent license in place. Fine. Propose one and I'll second the motion and vote for it. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: Debian logo its license
Jonathan P Tomer wrote: is the name debian a registered trademark? I think so. if it is, wouldn't it be sensible to do the same for the logo? I agree. I think trademarking the logo will allow us to prevent misuse and at the same time allow us to give it a DFSG-free copyright. -- see shy jo
Re: Debian logo its license
All: Please pardon my non-developer comment, but one thing about the license has bothered me for a while, and I've seen no else bring it up: Do we really want to limit the maximum size of an entity that can display the license? Points 2, 3, 4 of the license state, roughly, that you may not display the logo unless half of the entity (software, info, or service) must be related to or derived from Debian. Thus any product, or service organization, large enough to comprise all of Debian plus that amount of something else plus one bit, can no longer use the logo. So, Walnut Creek's FTP server (cdrom.com) is out of luck. So's the 13-CD release of Linux Developer's Resource, and IBM, c., c., c. (So's Microsoft...hmm, maybe that's the point. :-) Don't we want to specify that if they use the logo, they must include/service/know about/deal with _at_least_half_of_Debian_? That way, anyone displaying the logo is fairly clueful about us, but not inherently limited in the amount of what they can offer. Fading back into the shadows... Max Hyre Don't bother cc:ing me---I'll get it out of the mailing-list archives tomorrow night...
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 03:37:57AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: to either of these animals. We have our own message, too. We are constructors. We take the work of thousands of people and put them together. Shouldn't this be reflected by the logo, too? You mean like a penguin wearing a hard hat?
Re: Debian logo its license
Hi, On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:52:12AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: There has also been mention of people wanting a different logo. I think we should stick to our current logo for several reasons though: * it is a good logo: it's easily recognizable, simple to draw, scales good and looks good in both blackwhite and in colour. I agree it is a good logo in the sense that it fulfills all technical requirements for a logo. But IMHO it is a bad logo for the following reasons: * It is a penguin (even if some think it's a chicken). A penguin is already the Linux logo, are we only capable of plagiarism, or are we up to the task and have an identity of our own? * A penguin is submitting the wrong message in some other way, too: The Debian GNU/Hurd port is coming along quite nicely, and although it uses some linux driver code, it is quite different from Linux in several aspects. Debian is the distribution with most ports, and even non-Linux ports, too, now. Do we really want to restrict ourselves and our image to Linux for an uncertain period of time? * The logo was imposed on the developers. We now have a formalilzation of decision making, the constitution. It should be applied to this (partly) political decision. * Let's show some *taste* :) * choosing a new logo will take a long time: we would have to get submissions, vote on them all over again, etc. First, I don't think it would take too long. Secondly, do we really want to rush this important issue? About getting submissions: I think a Gimp contest would be appropriate, this would lead to better contributions. Christians Logo pages failed because there was hardly any Logo among the entries. The people contributing to a Gimp contest know about good design and requirements for a logo. Check the Gnome logo, it was the winner of a Gimp contest, too. I don't understand all over again. We have never voted on a logo. * I actually like the thing :) Oh. I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current license. Why intermix these two issues? Choosing a license and choosing a logo are completely different pair of shoes. They can be voted on seperately. Thanks, Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Re: Debian logo its license
Wichert Akkerman wrote: I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current license. I very much dislike the current license. I'm a debian developer, I'd like to put the debian logo on my home page, but I do *not* necessarily want to devote half or more of my home page to debian. I'd rather have pointers to the debian web site, and let debian speak for itself. Current (expired) license forbids this. I've previously raised issues about using the logo inside of packages too -- this one may be addressed by the current license, but it's certainly not clear. The logo should be a logo, it should be used to refer to or to advertise debian. It should *mean* debian. The current license isn't even *close* to filling this goal, imo. I asked on IRC about the logo license, and was basically told, nobody cares, if we ignore the problem it will go away. A deplorable attitude, IMO, license issues are at the core of what debian is all about. The thread on -legal ends with a comment that we should take this up after revising the dfsg. I disagree *strongly*. We have free software guidelines -- some of us even feel that the ones we have are much better than any of the proposals so far. We *don't* have a reasonable license for the logo. It may not be quite as critical, but I feel it's more urgent at the moment. Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-) cheers -- Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the or[EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
RE: Debian logo its license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 23-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote: I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current license. The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other reason but to remove the expiration date. = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* = -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNqp8C7bps1lIfUYBAQE92gQArR9qDHk+Fy/9PUPLak5/WtqDKYg2iK+s IAHj5y7qDzqQO8NdT1pKJcGcEH5xCwcR9LLmofO7a9SOzKR2WWgyikcIUzs5cTye A0fcVE0KFe48xBWwfkwG989vsx/sfTA3853TvPBwmtM3Psh+x8XTSvfJZg8fOz6J Rx44B1xdp2A= =CDpd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian logo its license
Previously Darren Benham wrote: The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other reason but to remove the expiration date. Okay, so I should have read the license before posting that :). Should we change anything besides removing the expiration date? So far nobody has commented on that. Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpehinuPGf1R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote: I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current license. I think this is a good idea. If this proposal needs to be seconded, consider this my seconded!. If it needs to be seconded somewhere else (debian-vote?) i'll do so there :) -ed
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:21:37PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-) And what if some anti-debian people get ahold of the logo and use it for evil purposes? -- Stephen Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -* Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my public key. PGP#22714B25 *-
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Chris Waters wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current license. I very much dislike the current license. I'm a debian developer, I'd like to put the debian logo on my home page, but I do *not* necessarily want to devote half or more of my home page to debian. I'd rather have pointers to the debian web site, and let debian speak for itself. Current (expired) license forbids this. I've previously raised issues about using the logo inside of packages too -- this one may be addressed by the current license, but it's certainly not clear. The logo should be a logo, it should be used to refer to or to advertise debian. It should *mean* debian. The current license isn't even *close* to filling this goal, imo. [snip] Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-) well then, that's all the more reason to have a vote, imho. i personally dislike the logo and agree with you about the license. since there are enough people raising concerns about the logo, i think a vote is warranted. what do you think? -ed
RE: Debian logo its license
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote: On 23-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote: I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current license. The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other reason but to remove the expiration date. Note that the proposal is to vote *on* the license logo, not necessarily *for* it. -ed
Re: Debian logo its license
Previously Chris Waters wrote: Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-) Agreed. Shall we move the logo license discussion to debian-legal and rewrite it there? Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpQ5YEMrbHaR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian logo its license
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote: * It is a penguin (even if some think it's a chicken). A penguin is already the Linux logo, are we only capable of plagiarism, or are we up to the task and have an identity of our own? Heh, nobody seems to be able to spot that :) * A penguin is submitting the wrong message in some other way, too: The Debian GNU/Hurd port is coming along quite nicely, and although it uses some linux driver code, it is quite different from Linux in several aspects. Debian is the distribution with most ports, and even non-Linux ports, too, now. Do we really want to restrict ourselves and our image to Linux for an uncertain period of time? No, but since almost nobody seems to see the current logo is actually a penguin I didn't really worry about that. It even seemed somewhat appriopriate in that a Debian did begin as a Linux-only distribution. There is no shame in showing your roots imho. * The logo was imposed on the developers. We now have a formalilzation of decision making, the constitution. It should be applied to this (partly) political decision. That's true. It's also true that most favourite `logos' were not good logos. Logo criteria are really important. * Let's show some *taste* :) Heh, that always makes for interesting discussions. I'm quite sure you wouldn't like my taste in music, but I'm really happy with it :) First, I don't think it would take too long. Secondly, do we really want to rush this important issue? Letting hundreds of developers choose one logo in a multitude of submissions sounds like a time-consuming process. We would probably need a scheme to elimiate logo's, then revote, eliminate more, etc. to do it fairly. About getting submissions: I think a Gimp contest would be appropriate, this would lead to better contributions. Iff we decide that we want a new logo, then I agree that would be the best approach. It would also demonstrate how open we are. Christians Logo pages failed because there was hardly any Logo among the entries. Very true. I don't understand all over again. We have never voted on a logo. We did in the sense that people could choose their favourite logo on Christians page. Why intermix these two issues? Choosing a license and choosing a logo are completely different pair of shoes. They can be voted on seperately. Geez, it seems you have issues with everything I said. Looks like I succeeded in starting a discussion again though :). I mixed them because they are closely related: you can't have one without the other.1 Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpNMM8mjsr92.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian logo its license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 24-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Darren Benham wrote: The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other reason but to remove the expiration date. Okay, so I should have read the license before posting that :). Should we change anything besides removing the expiration date? So far nobody has commented on that. Wichert. Probably... I don't have time to outline my ideas. I'll get to it later tonight after I get back = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* = -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNqqPqbbps1lIfUYBAQH+lgP+J1cUfSksGMsmfvWVFfbutRl9Sv+fJdYE mzj6qf1ZaJa8o/y1F8zAq+4w9P72GNeHtEORlPI3Ywcd1kChPh/bfnXkJVCYMNxk FerHnnz1t4TazQNmAeebw2bDZ+7/FXgJxowKQJFTGVqqsu2qNifMffG8Xr5vC/2q /ZUIRsIiDfw= =aWyg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian logo its license
Hi, On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:54:14AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote: * It is a penguin (even if some think it's a chicken). A penguin is already the Linux logo, are we only capable of plagiarism, or are we up to the task and have an identity of our own? Heh, nobody seems to be able to spot that :) Despite your funny comment I think this is a very serious concern. Debian is independent enough from both GNU, and Linux, that the Logo should not refer to either of these animals. We have our own message, too. We are constructors. We take the work of thousands of people and put them together. Shouldn't this be reflected by the logo, too? * A penguin is submitting the wrong message in some other way, too: The Debian GNU/Hurd port is coming along quite nicely, and although it uses some linux driver code, it is quite different from Linux in several aspects. Debian is the distribution with most ports, and even non-Linux ports, too, now. Do we really want to restrict ourselves and our image to Linux for an uncertain period of time? No, but since almost nobody seems to see the current logo is actually a penguin I didn't really worry about that. It even seemed somewhat appriopriate in that a Debian did begin as a Linux-only distribution. There is no shame in showing your roots imho. Certainly there isn't. But isn't GNU our real root? Think about it, and then let's drop this idea about GNU, Linux or GNU/Linux. It is not appropriate. To avoid confusion, something independent would be favourable. This is also to make Debian a community. We need something to identify each other, to seperate us from the whole Linux movement, as a distinct entity _inside_ it. This is not an unfriendly seperation, don't get me wrong. Just something that shows: here starts and ends Debian, the best free operating system. If someone identifies it as a chicken or not is irrelevant. In the context, everyone will admit that it is meant to be a penguin. * The logo was imposed on the developers. We now have a formalilzation of decision making, the constitution. It should be applied to this (partly) political decision. That's true. It's also true that most favourite `logos' were not good logos. Logo criteria are really important. Yes. This is why I am not sure that voting is the right way to choose a logo. Probably a group of elected persons should make the decision, and only the decision gets ratified. Probably this group should elect a couple (two or three) and the vote should be among them. * Let's show some *taste* :) Heh, that always makes for interesting discussions. I'm quite sure you wouldn't like my taste in music, but I'm really happy with it :) Hehe. But still: The logo could be improved. This is certainly a personal opinion only, but ask yourself what image the Logo will put on Debian. Will CD vendors use the logo on the Debian CD? Is it professional enough? If nobody uses the logo because it is ugly, then we can choose whatever logo we want. It will be pretty useless, though. Note that we can't do much marketing on our own, so we can't promote our logo=image ourselve. We have to rely on third party vendors. Because we make free software, we can't enforce our logo. If we choose a good logo, though, people will like to see it, and vendors will use it. Until yet, I still have to see a CD/magazine whatever which uses Chicken Blue Eye. First, I don't think it would take too long. Secondly, do we really want to rush this important issue? Letting hundreds of developers choose one logo in a multitude of submissions sounds like a time-consuming process. We would probably need a scheme to elimiate logo's, then revote, eliminate more, etc. to do it fairly. I think this is the wrong approach. See above for an alternate proposal. We could vote that a small group of interested people investigate the entries and pick some winners. Among the small elected number, the rest of the developers could vote on. About getting submissions: I think a Gimp contest would be appropriate, this would lead to better contributions. Iff we decide that we want a new logo, then I agree that would be the best approach. It would also demonstrate how open we are. Ok. I don't understand all over again. We have never voted on a logo. We did in the sense that people could choose their favourite logo on Christians page. Don't remember of THAT! We have seen what came out of this. Nice CD covers, no logos. It was the wrong approach, and we should learn from the past. We should reckognize that we may not be good artists and designers after all, and leave this to the talented people. Why intermix these two issues? Choosing a license and choosing a logo are completely different pair of shoes. They can be voted on seperately. Geez, it seems you have issues with everything I said. Looks like I succeeded in starting a discussion
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:55:56AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Agreed. Shall we move the logo license discussion to debian-legal and rewrite it there? Explain: Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_? I havent been a developer for a long time, but it seems to me as a normal person that I dislike excessive legalese. We already split hairs over every little thing, important as it may be. However, I think our time is better spent discussing things other than how to license something that half the people I talk to think is a chicken. Let's see if we want to replace it, then lets _ask_ people who use it to give credit to the designer, like with Larry Ewing and Tux. You don't see him writing a license, do you? Andrew -- Andrew G. Feinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pager: 1-888-950-5050 PIN 6093780 PGP Fingerprint 78 55 2B B4 A7 B2 96 FF 84 BA 4A 3F 23 82 DD 80 (If this is not related in some way to the Debian Project, please direct replies to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:52:12 +0100, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Wichert [1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)] For the Nth Wichert time our logo license has expired. It might be a good idea Wichert to finally finalize the license instead of just extending Wichert its lifetime every couple of months. Wichert There has also been mention of people wanting a different Wichert logo. I think we should stick to our current logo for Wichert several reasons though: Wichert * it is a good logo: it's easily recognizable, simple to Wichert draw, scales good and looks good in both blackwhite and Wichert in colour. Wichert * choosing a new logo will take a long time: we would have Wichert to get submissions, vote on them all over again, etc. Wichert * I actually like the thing :) Wichert I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the Wichert current license. Since this seems to be a formal proposal. I second. I'd like to see an end to the issue once and for all. I see two different votes here: 1) A formal logo license that Debian will use. and 2) What we do about the logo (with options a) keep current, b) keep current for some amount of time, c) get new one in some manner). Dres -- @James LewisMoss [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Blessed Be! @http://www.ioa.com/~dres | Linux is kewl! @Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours. Bach
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 07:48:00PM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote: On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:21:37PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-) And what if some anti-debian people get ahold of the logo and use it for evil purposes? What if someone gets hold of the Linux kernel and uses it to guide nuclear missiles? (Well, at least they have to share their changes with us :)) Seriously, slander is slander, and it's rude, and people will know it when they see it. Furthermore, if people want to parody Debian (including the logo) they'll do so regardless of the logo license, and Debian doesn't have enough money to sue them about it. Besides, did anyone bother to register a trademark? A license that says this logo should only be used when referring specifically to Debian is plenty and probably still unenforceable. Have fun, Avery
Re: Debian logo its license
Avery Pennarun wrote: What if someone gets hold of the Linux kernel and uses it to guide nuclear missiles? (Well, at least they have to share their changes with us :)) Only if they distribute the control systems : Seriously, slander is slander, and it's rude, and people will know it when they see it. Furthermore, if people want to parody Debian (including the logo) they'll do so regardless of the logo license, and Debian doesn't have enough money to sue them about it. Besides, did anyone bother to register a trademark? Aren't parodies specifically allowed under international copyright law? A license that says this logo should only be used when referring specifically to Debian is plenty and probably still unenforceable. Yeah, I don't think it should be more than one sentence. Perhaps: You are licensed to use and distribute modified versions of this logo to refer to or advertise debian. Note that this fails DFSG point #6. I believe this was the original intent. -- Robert Woodcock - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's like a love-hate relationship, but without the love. -- jwz, on linux
Re: Debian logo its license
Robert Woodcock wrote: You are licensed to use and distribute modified versions of this logo to refer to or advertise debian. Note that this fails DFSG point #6. I believe this was the original intent. We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical. Consider: of gnome licensed its logo this way, we would be required by the DFSG to put gnome in non-free or remove its logo from any gnome packages that used it. -- see shy jo
Re: Debian logo its license
Andrew G . Feinberg writes: Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_? We don't. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Re: Debian logo its license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 24-Jan-99 Avery Pennarun wrote: On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 07:48:00PM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote: On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:21:37PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-) And what if some anti-debian people get ahold of the logo and use it for evil purposes? What if someone gets hold of the Linux kernel and uses it to guide nuclear missiles? (Well, at least they have to share their changes with us :)) It will still be a piece of copyrighted material, regarless of whether Debian has the money to sue or not. That copyright is basicly that nobody can use or reproduce the logo w/o permission. Organizations and people (such as Debian) will regard that copyright and not use it or keep asking for permission. It's not much different than the issue of the software licenses. If the author didn't GRANT the permission to modify/distribute/etc, then that permission doesn't exist. A license that says this logo should only be used when referring specifically to Debian is plenty and probably still unenforceable. Maybe = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* = -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNqtfrrbps1lIfUYBAQH2MgP/YHbFyoNpW3zV0sBw+v5lZ3rSWafVHt2M nxEkQS7+aseHsvbpeMtm2rNoVxedimYrz78OhB8bergVXO9qnBly6qxNbeEnzHDC R5Ty3W8uea30VMIvYPnwLsKG02Gi2VaWl5Pmnd5nDxuTcDNfp6BJeuDjrAAtxbve lm0lSFtxBcM= =1Y++ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: Robert Woodcock wrote: You are licensed to use and distribute modified versions of this logo to refer to or advertise debian. Note that this fails DFSG point #6. I believe this was the original intent. We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical. Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines. A logo is not software. It may well be that we want a logo whose use is restricted so that we can have some control over the quality of items that it is associated with. It appears that what we really need are two logos: one with a relatively open license and second with a more restricted one. The open one would be used on web pages, etc. An example where a more restricted license would be appropriate is letting it only be used on CDs that pass a test suite guaranteeing that the CD set is 'good enough'. Jay Treacy
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:35:50PM -0600, Andrew G . Feinberg wrote: Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_? Because if we don't, nobody has the right to make copies of it and display it publically. It's the same reason as with software. as a normal person that I dislike excessive legalese. If you really were a normal person, why are you a Debian developer? The proverbial normal people /hate/ (or at best tolerate) computers. (My point being that there is not one normal person on the face of Earth. Everyone have their quirks.) And a license by itself is not excessive legalese. Most free software licenses I've read are not legalese at all, and those that are (GNU (L)GPL and MPL come first to mind) are quite readable to a logically oriented mind with some patience. Larry Ewing and Tux. You don't see him writing a license, do you? The picture of Tux is licensed freely for any use as long as Larry Ewing is mentioned. Don't know about modification, though. Antti-Juhani -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% EMACS, n.: Emacs May Allow Customised Screwups (unknown origin)
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical. James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines. You're trying to make a distinction between code and data, here? That doesn't work for the general case. A logo is not software. I'm not sure you're working with a viable definition of software. Here's the definition I get from www.m-w.com: Main Entry: soft·ware Pronunciation: 'soft-war, -wer Function: noun Date: 1960 : something used or associated with and usually contrasted with hardware: as a : the entire set of programs, procedures, and related documentation associated with a system and especially a computer system; specifically : computer programs b : materials for use with audiovisual equipment -- Raul
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 01:42:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical. James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines. You're trying to make a distinction between code and data, here? That doesn't work for the general case. A logo is not software. I'm not sure you're working with a viable definition of software. I hope that you are not trying to argue that there is no difference between a program and a logo. This is clearly ridiculous. We seem to have a number of people talking past each other. One group want a logo with a relatively free license for uses such as web pages. This is perfectly reasonable. Another group of people are interested in a logo which is used for advertising products with the Debian name on it. Many people (me included), feel we need a more restrictive license on such a logo so that we may protect the name of Debian. We need to protect ourselves from abuse of such a logo as it may be used in ways that reflect badly on Debian. An example is some of the poor quality CDs that have been released with the name Debian on them. This is why I suggested that we have two logos. Just to make sure no one is advocating this, the GPL is not a particularly good license for licensing things such as logos and documentation. Read the archives for the many discussions about this. The existence of this discussion, which is at least the 10th time it has been discussed, clearly indicates that we need to vote on this issue. A clear vote with some archives to point people to in the future should keep us from rehashing this every few months. There are much more important things for us to be doing. Jay Treacy
Re: Debian logo its license
James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope that you are not trying to argue that there is no difference between a program and a logo. This is clearly ridiculous. That's not my point. However, the definition of software is broad enough to cover both, and the use of that particular word isn't going to resolve the issue. [Also, it's reasonable to talk about things which are both programs (or, perhaps, things which map from some argument domain to some range of results) and logos (or, perhaps, bitmapped images).] We seem to have a number of people talking past each other. One group want a logo with a relatively free license for uses such as web pages. This is perfectly reasonable. Agreed. Another group of people are interested in a logo which is used for advertising products with the Debian name on it. Many people (me included), feel we need a more restrictive license on such a logo so that we may protect the name of Debian. We need to protect ourselves from abuse of such a logo as it may be used in ways that reflect badly on Debian. An example is some of the poor quality CDs that have been released with the name Debian on them. I agree that this is an issue, but looking at our track record (especially the problems with the official hamm cds), I don't think an official logo is going to solve the problem. I think a better approach to the distributor quality problem is to provide distributor rating pages (basically just a concise list of significant issues for each distributor). RMS might not like it (then again, I've not asked him), but to me it seems like the right approach. The existence of this discussion, which is at least the 10th time it has been discussed, clearly indicates that we need to vote on this issue. A clear vote with some archives to point people to in the future should keep us from rehashing this every few months. There are much more important things for us to be doing. The existence of a recurring discussion usually indicates an unsolved problem. A vote might or might not resolve the underlying issue. In this case, the discussion seems to have been triggered by the expiration of the current logo license. -- Raul
Re: Debian logo its license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- is the name debian a registered trademark? if it is, wouldn't it be sensible to do the same for the logo? - --p. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNqt2MUJhnFR90XSjAQHeFAf9EULUklt0QfjI2DAbrPK2A9ZmmmUvOhFY x0PpYHWvWoOF1nfiyuECerd1dLAaYsk748TWya+FuOMK8xl4aJYLE4CtcdYO3LPH FlUOPL0QgKj5sS9+a6xuSBnrnxvFAsvNBk5RYJamSZOIDaFTsAnBr5jseG+MjC+c 2Rt4IDYMBgAFoR/m8hs9MOFV9rln5oTZKGKjyzz0XeKsuf5jw8QKiIDQgGk9sLc/ 36n2/LPS/5K/lClz1B4uKqLZSSwSWmvcWSymubKeg7dZn9QL5thZYZLZpPs/65XV IbYDaIPPmwWh4NcWRPDocs+ymNdmgKpq5ftfq8DjhdZV50d2mps8sg== =IiPD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical. Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines. A logo is not software. It may well be that we want a logo whose use is restricted so that we can have some control over the quality of items that it is associated with. More to the point, a logo is more like a name than software. Its purpose is to identify something, not make it work. We have DFSG software in Debian which has the license requirement that if a modified version fails to pass a particularly stringent, non-DFSG conformance test, it may not use a particular name to identify it. The ability to require renaming a program because the authors don't want a broken fork detracting from their reputations has been a part of the DFSG for a long time, and I didn't think that it was under dispute. Should not the author have the same control over other identifying marks (like logos) which are associated with the software? I don't think that that violates the spirit of the DFSG. If it violates the letter, then I think it should be looked into. It appears that what we really need are two logos: one with a relatively open license and second with a more restricted one. The open one would be used on web pages, etc. An example where a more restricted license would be appropriate is letting it only be used on CDs that pass a test suite guaranteeing that the CD set is 'good enough'. I agree. I would suggest that the two be closely linked in form... To use our current logo as an example, have the plain line-art penguin as the open logo, and the penguin in the center of a scalloped-edged annulus (as if it were in the center of a seal) as the restricted logo. Both scale well, both are distinctive, and both are similar enough to tell that they are both related. (I thought of suggesting the word certified, approved, or similar into the suggested logo, but words don't scale well, can be hard to read, imply things they probably shouldn't, and are language-specific.) Jay Treacy -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Re: Debian logo its license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 24-Jan-99 John Hasler wrote: Andrew G . Feinberg writes: Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_? We don't. Of course we do. Otherwise we'd have to grant permission to every tom-dick-harry that wanted to use it in any way-shape-form. = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* = -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNqu2J7bps1lIfUYBAQF1rwP/RA7BMTAge7XJJ7w924o9m+x4vow5m7RF oRtbW2tLKjn51v0D7foUEY0B5pNkwiq1N8yB6kgABM3Gx59E6sygnreCN3oiMmed M6Gfuc4mLghcaen0/cMLNPurpmQKdLPSNfGf/N334veReBC5m1WYr9bD28w4VJ4A KEhGsvzCMpY= =eelH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian logo its license
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:32:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: The existence of a recurring discussion usually indicates an unsolved problem. A vote might or might not resolve the underlying issue. Let's hope that there is enough interest generated that we actually do solve the problem. In this case, the discussion seems to have been triggered by the expiration of the current logo license. True. I decided to leave it this way to force the issue - and it looks like it is working. If enough people complain loudly enough I or one of the other webmasters will extend it again. Jay Treacy
