Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
Karl Berry wrote: > I suggest, based on the advice in maintain.texi: > > Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright > notice and this notice are preserved. > > Perhaps it is ok to just put this in a modules/README file and say all > the modules/* files are covered by it. OK, I added a modules/README. But why do you put "in any medium" after the "are permitted"? "in any medium" obviously pertains to "Copying and distribution", which makes it sound as if "without royalty" pertains to "Copying and distribution" as well - and this would be a non-free license. I would prefer to write Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, in any medium, are permitted without royalty provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved. Bruno
Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 09:48:40PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > Carlo, > > I am sorry to inform you that I have decided to move libcwd to > Debian's non-free archive, where it will enjoy less support. The > debian-legal team has deemed the QPL to be not DFSG-free, and even > though I completely understand and subscribe to your rationale, I am > not capable of sustaining it in main any longer. Hi Martin, How many packages depend on this library? These should be moved to contrib, and if they're not many you could consider removing libcwd along with them, too. -- .''`. Proudly running Debian GNU/kFreeBSD unstable/unreleased (on UFS2+S) : :' : `. `'http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu `-
Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free
also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1908 +0200]: > How many packages depend on this library? These should be moved > to contrib, and if they're not many you could consider removing > libcwd along with them, too. Consider removing it? Why? Anyway, I doubt there is a single package that depends on libcwd. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 07:13:20PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1908 +0200]: > > How many packages depend on this library? These should be moved > > to contrib, and if they're not many you could consider removing > > libcwd along with them, too. > > Consider removing it? Why? > > Anyway, I doubt there is a single package that depends on libcwd. We provide non-free packages when our users require them (Social Contract). If there's no demand for libcwd there's no reason to provide it. This is you as the maintainer who should judge that. I think it's specialy appropiate to take this in consideration for a library that has no reverse dependencies. Of course, maybe we should just wait for a response from upstream and see if they want to re-license :). -- .''`. Proudly running Debian GNU/kFreeBSD unstable/unreleased (on UFS2+S) : :' : `. `'http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu `-
Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free
also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1926 +0200]: > We provide non-free packages when our users require them (Social > Contract). If there's no demand for libcwd there's no reason to > provide it. This is you as the maintainer who should judge that. I need the package myself. > I think it's specialy appropiate to take this in consideration for > a library that has no reverse dependencies. Right. So how do I reach out to the 17 users popcon lists? > Of course, maybe we should just wait for a response from upstream > and see if they want to re-license :). Unlikely. But you never know. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 07:31:56PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1926 +0200]: > > We provide non-free packages when our users require them (Social > > Contract). If there's no demand for libcwd there's no reason to > > provide it. This is you as the maintainer who should judge that. > > I need the package myself. > [...] > Right. So how do I reach out to the 17 users popcon lists? Well, that counts a few users indeed. :) Anyway, as a sidenote I encourage you to find an alternative if the licensing problem cannot be solved. -- .''`. Proudly running Debian GNU/kFreeBSD unstable/unreleased (on UFS2+S) : :' : `. `'http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu `-
Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free
reassign 251983 libcwd tags 251983 - upstream thanks On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 09:48:40PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > I am sorry to inform you that I have decided to move libcwd to > Debian's non-free archive, Moving from main to non-free can and should be done by the maintainer, and is not a task ftp-masters will perform. Thanks, --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Re: Clarifying non-free parts of the GNU FDL
Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 04:23:01PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: >>"These exceptions are granted for derivative works only if those works >>contain no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover >>Texts." > > That's a possibility, but without buy-in from the FSF, I don't regard > the GFDL as a particularly good starting point for a free documentation > license. It seems like the CC licenses might be a better basis. Another possibility is to simply use the GPL, and grant exceptions for various cases. Given that an ideal Free documentation license would be GPL-compatible (if not the GPL itself, which is pretty ideal), and that any GPL-compatible license must not have any restrictions that are not in the GPL (so it must consist of some subset of the GPL's conditions), then that GPL-compatible documentation license could instead be written as a set of exceptions to the GPL. For example, if one wanted to permit distributors of physical copies to refuse to provide source, then that could be written as an exception. (I personally think it is a good idea to require distributors, both physical and electronic, to provide source. However, many people wish to waive this condition for convenience, and that's fine; the resulting license would still be free, just less of a copyleft.) - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free
also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.04.1934 +0200]: > Anyway, as a sidenote I encourage you to find an alternative if > the licensing problem cannot be solved. Sure. I doubt there is one though. Then again, I am likely not going to need all the functionality. So yes, maybe I'll just drop it alltogether. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>No; the problem is that the *work*, meaning the Debian logo, would be >>non-free, because it would not grant all the rights required by the >>DFSG. Specifically, you could not take the logo and use it in any way >>you choose, in any field of endeavor, including the field of software. > > The Debian logo is not a work. It is depicted in many works. The > logo is the idea which is expressed in all those works. Any work, no > matter how derived, which expresses that idea depicts the Debian logo > and is a trademark of Debian. I'm well aware of that. The only such works for which the DFSG-freeness of the trademark license is relevant, however, are those logo _images_ (if you prefer to require that qualification) which are shipped in the Debian distribution, and works derived from those logo images. > And any license which claims to free the logo by relaxing these > requirements causes the idea in question to no longer be the logo of > Debian. That's just how trademark law works. All those people who > think that you have to defend your copyrights or lose them -- this is > the non-bullshit version of what they're thinking about. What you're > arguing would require that Debian have no logo. I'm not convinced > that's an awful idea, but I sure don't think it's a good one. If you > think it's a good one, go over to -project and argue that the Project > should have no logo or name, and should relinquish its trademarks. Please do not continue to construct this misrepresentation of my position. I am not arguing that Debian should hold no trademarks, nor am I arguing that Debian should not have a name and logo. My argument is solely based on the fact that works in Debian main must be DFSG-free, and therefore if we wish to ship the logo (or if you prefer, "logo images") in Debian main, which for practical reasons we must be able to, it must be DFSG-free. A license on those "logo images" which does not permit all possible uses, up to and including use on competing websites, for competing distributions, and so on, is not DFSG-free. On the other hand, requirements such as *acknowledge the origin of the logo*, *do not misrepresent the origins of the logo*, and *do not falsely claim endorsement by or affiliation with Debian* are perfectly reasonable. This argument is much like the case of Free licenses for standards documents. Some people argue that in order to keep the standard standardized, the license on those documents should prohibit various types of modification, such as non-conforming implementations, or simply all modified versions. However, this is both non-free and unnecessary. A DFSG-free solution that also achieves the same goal is a license which includes terms much like those of zlib: > 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not > claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software > in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be > appreciated but is not required. > > 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must > not be misrepresented as being the original software. Such terms ensure that anyone clearly understands they are getting a modified, non-standard version of the standard. Similarly, the logo/"logo image" is used to identify Debian as Debian; it could be argued (and is currently being argued by many) that we need a license which prohibits those uses we find "undesirable", such as use by competing (or even friendly) distributions. Again, this is non-free. A DFSG-free solution that achieves the same goal is a license which includes terms that require distributors to not misrepresent the origins of the logo image, document modifications, preserve the accompanying license notices (which will reference the Debian Project), and even (if we are willing to be GPL-incompatible) explicitly acknowlege the origins of the logo. There are many other similar requirements Debian could make to serve the same goals while still remaining DFSG-free. I see no reason why, if a license like that which has been proposed, which would prohibit unmodified or insufficiently modified use by others (unless that use refers to Debian), is accepted as DFSG-free, that a license which said "You may not use this software as a basis for other software that competes with ours, or to run a website which competes with ours." would not be DFSG-free as well. The only difference here is that we sympathise with the prohibitions of "undesirable" uses. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Raul Miller wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: >>>So... what is the DFSG restriction that's violated? > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:51:50PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >>DFSG 6. >> >>Suppose I wrote a license that granted all the standard rights to use, >>copy, modify, and distribute, but that placed some non-free restriction >>on commercial distributors. That's non-free, just as it would be if I >>prohibited commercial use entirely. > > You're begging the question here -- yes, it's true that if you placed > some non-free restriction on commercial distributors, that that would > be non-free. But you have to start with a non-free restriction, and > that's what I'm asking you to identify. Any particular restriction which would be non-free if applied to everyone. For example, requirements to be compliant with a standard, or to not compete with the original piece of software, or to send modifications to the author, or to only use unmodified versions for a particular purpose. > But, not all restrictions are non-free restrictions. For example, > the GPL places restrictions on the charges which can be placed on GPLed > software by commercial distributors. No, it doesn't. It does place restrictions on the charges which can be placed on the source of GPLed software for which the recipient has binaries. Nevertheless, I understand and agree with the statement that there exist acceptable restrictions. >>Similarly, if you restrict the types of use of the logo in a particular >>field of endeavor, that's a non-free restriction, just as if you >>prohibited the use of the logo entirely in that field of endeavor, or in >>all fields of endeavor. > > But commercial distributors can use the Debian logo -- they have to use > it in an honest fashion, but I don't see any reason to treat fraud as > a field of endeavor. > > If we treat fraud as a field of endeavor, then we'd have to throw out > the GPL for its requirement that copyright notices be preserved. *sigh*. First of all, this was an analogy, from restrictions placed on commercial distributors to other restrictions placed on other fields of endeavor. The intent was not to state that the proposed logo license restricts commercial distributors in some way (which it doesn't), but that it places a restriction on anyone in the domain in which Debian hold its trademarks, that restriction being that they cannot use unmodified or insufficiently-modified versions except to refer to Debian. Second, I disagree with what you are attempting to imply with your use of the terms "honest" and "fraud"; I believe you are misconstruing those terms to mean "various things I don't think we should allow". I see no reason to distinguish the proposed license terms from terms like "you may not use this software as a basis for competing software, or to run a competing website". Finally, I do not consider fraud to be a field of endeavor, and I do not support fraudulent uses of the logo, which to me would include using the logo to claim endorsement or affiliation, removing legal notices, misrepresenting the origins of the logo, or similar issues, most of which are prohibited regardless of whether the license explicitly does so. This does not include simply using the logo for non-"referring to Debian" purposes. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Raul Miller wrote: >>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> >>>But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in >>>roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless. > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the >>drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that >>interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that >>identifies a project. "GCC", "grub", "Linux", and "Apache" are all >>names. A logo is not a name. > > You're changing the subject from what Brian was talking about: the set of > "trademarks" has only a small area of overlap with the set of "logos". > Sure, there are logos which don't identify anything, but those logos > aren't trademarks. And in this case, the subject is a logo which is in the intersection of the set of "logos" and the set of "trademarks". "trademark" does not inherently imply "name" in the DFSG4 sense, although most trademarks are of names; neither does "logo". A name is a name, not a logo, not a sound file, not a video clip, and not any other similar work. The sum total of what DFSG4 should permit a license to require is a change in the top-level non-functional string identifier for a work; I would be hesitant to say that it can even require a global s/NAME/SOMETHINGELSE/, especially if that name is ever used in functional manner, such as libNAME.so.42 or NAME_functionname. If we are going to permit arbitrary pieces of a work (including both functional and non-functional components), such as imagery, to be construed as a "name", then we have a serious Freeness problem. > Anyways, could you describe a serious scenario that illustrates this > danger to software freedom that you're so concerned about? [I saw the > scenario where you proposed that we shouldn't discriminate against fraud, > but the philosophy behind your argument would have us declare the GPL > non-free -- so that doesn't seem like a serious issue.] See my reply to that message for why that is a complete misinterpretation of my position; I don't endorse fraud, but I think the proposed license prohibits a vast number of non-fraudulent issues. Examples of acceptable uses of any DFSG-free image, which the proposed logo license would prohibit: * Use as the basis of any logo, for any organization. * Use on the cover of a book. * Use on a website (even of a competing distribution). * Use as the basis for hiding a steganographic message. * Use for Debian-derived distributions (though it would not give them the right to claim endorsement or affiliation, nor would any of the other cases). * Many other uses, few of which fall in the category of "referring to Debian", and none of which fall into the category of "fraud". * Use as the basis for any other image, which can then be used for all the same purposes. To be honest, your arguments remind me strongly of the people who argue that Free Software makes no sense because their competitors might get to use the software too. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Clarifying non-free parts of the GNU FDL
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:51:01 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: > Another possibility is to simply use the GPL, and grant exceptions for > various cases. Given that an ideal Free documentation license would > be GPL-compatible (if not the GPL itself, which is pretty ideal), and > that any GPL-compatible license must not have any restrictions that > are not in the GPL (so it must consist of some subset of the GPL's > conditions), then that GPL-compatible documentation license could > instead be written as a set of exceptions to the GPL. > > For example, if one wanted to permit distributors of physical copies > to refuse to provide source, then that could be written as an > exception.(I personally think it is a good idea to require > distributors, both physical and electronic, to provide source. > However, many people wish to waive this condition for convenience, and > that's fine; the resulting license would still be free, just less of a > copyleft.) Agreed fully. The GPL *is* suitable for documentation. And providing source is indeed important in order to permit the recipient to fully exercise the freedoms we value... -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco PoliGnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpyhaV7Zk1Gz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#274950: figlet: non-free licenses and possibly non-distributable files
Package: figlet Version: 2.2.1-2; reported 2004-10-05 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! Figlet is in main, but does not seem to comply with the DFSG. Moreover the copyright file seems inaccurate. Please refer to http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00249.html and to the following thread, for further discussions. Looking at the contents of the orig.tar.gz, I found a file named "Artistic-license.txt" that contains a license similar, but not identical to /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic. I'm told that this license looks like the old Artistic license with the perl-specific parts removed. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00320.html in the above mentioned thread. This license is problematic at best. Actually file figlet.c states that the whole package is under this `Artistic license': / FIGlet Copyright 1991, 1993, 1994 Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai FIGlet Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 John Cowan FIGlet Copyright 2002 Christiaan Keet Portions written by Paul Burton and Christiaan Keet Internet: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FIGlet, along with the various FIGlet fonts and documentation, is copyrighted under the provisions of the Artistic License (as listed in the file "Artistic-license.txt" which is included in this package. / At the same time other files seem to state different things... See the following. Makefile: copyright notices with no permissions granted # Makefile for figlet version 2.2.1 (13 July 2002) # adapted from Makefile for figlet version 2.2 (15 Oct 1996) # Copyright 1993, 1994,1995 Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai # Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 John Cowan # Copyright 2002 Christiaan Keet chkfont.c, figlist, showfigfonts: no copyright notice at all (a clarification that these files are covered by the package license would be helpful) crc.c, crc.h, inflate.c, inflate.h, zipio.c, zipio.h: non-free license /* * Copyright (c) 1995, Edward B. Hamrick * * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and * its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided * that * * (i) the above copyright notice and the text in this "C" comment block * appear in all copies of the software and related documentation, and * * (ii) any modifications to this source file must be sent, via e-mail * to the copyright owner (currently [EMAIL PROTECTED]) within * 30 days of such modification. This is compelled distribution. It does not permit private modifications. It fails the Dissident Test and the Desert Island Test. Non-free. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS-IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, * EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY * WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. * * IN NO EVENT SHALL EDWARD B. HAMRICK BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, * INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER * RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER OR NOT ADVISED OF * THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGE, AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. */ figfont.txt: non-free license | Draft 2.0 Copyright 1996, 1997 | by John Cowan and Paul Burton | Portions Copyright 1991, 1993, 1994 | by Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai | May be freely copied and distributed. Where's the permission to modify? figlet.6: This file include another copyright notice that seems to cover the whole package, but the permission grant seems non-free... .\" FIGlet .\" Copyright (C) 1991, 1993, 1994 Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai .\" Internet: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .\" Portions Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 by John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .\" Portions Copyright 2002 by Christiaan Keet .\" FIGlet, along with the various FIGlet fonts and documentation, may .\" be freely copied and distributed. It lacks permission to make modifications! Is this an inaccurate summary of the actual license? Or is this *the* license itself? .\" If you use FIGlet, please send an e-mail message to .\" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .\" some font files (fonts/*.flf): very limited permission grant, non-free | Permission is hereby given to modify this font, as long as the | modifier's name is placed on a comment line. No permission to distribute... And it would be non-free even with this permission, because it requires the name of the modifier. OK, now the copyright file states: - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This is the Debian Linux prepackaged version of Figlet, a program for doing things _ _ _ _ _ _ | (_) | _ | |_| |
Re: OpenOffice.org (LGPL) and hspell (GPL)
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 11:33, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Am Dienstag, 21. September 2004 12:28 schrieb Steve Langasek: > > Why not? If all of OOo is LGPL, then the license allows you to > > distribute under the terms of the GPL, so linking with another GPL > > library is ok. > > Hmm... Does this mean we would be changing the licensing of the packages from LGPL/SISL to GPL only? This may upset some users who are linking non-free modules to OOo at the moment. I'm thinking of the Finnish spellchecking and hyphenation module that Jarno Elonen packaged. Chris
Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > DFSG-free. On the other hand, requirements such as *acknowledge the > origin of the logo*, *do not misrepresent the origins of the logo*, and > *do not falsely claim endorsement by or affiliation with Debian* are > perfectly reasonable. So the FSF could require that I not use Emacs to falsely claim endorsement by or affiliation with them as part of their *license*, and that would be DFSG-Free? Hm. That doesn't seem right. It seems like you're suggesting we package this logo such that it isn't usable as a logo by anybody else. Also, I'm not clear to whom those requirements apply -- those who modify and distribute the work, or anyone in the privacy of their home, or mirrors who distribute it unmodified? If the last, then *we*'d have to ship compliant images, to avoid making mirrors' lives hell. And adding "Debian Logo" and "not affiliated with Debian" on the bottom of every image sounds like it would make it not useful as a Debian logo either -- but maybe you can propose some wording such that it would work. I'd be interested to see that. > This argument is much like the case of Free licenses for standards > documents. Some people argue that in order to keep the standard > standardized, the license on those documents should prohibit various > types of modification, such as non-conforming implementations, or simply > all modified versions. However, this is both non-free and unnecessary. > A DFSG-free solution that also achieves the same goal is a license > which includes terms much like those of zlib: > >> 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not >> claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software >> in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be >> appreciated but is not required. >> >> 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must >> not be misrepresented as being the original software. > > Such terms ensure that anyone clearly understands they are getting a > modified, non-standard version of the standard. Indeed. That works great for standards -- but doesn't work for the logo images. Do you have something for them? > Similarly, the logo/"logo image" is used to identify Debian as Debian; > it could be argued (and is currently being argued by many) that we need > a license which prohibits those uses we find "undesirable", such as use > by competing (or even friendly) distributions. Again, this is > non-free. I haven't heard anyone propose that -- only that Debian not license its trademarks for any purpose but representation or identification of Debian. So Knoppix could use the swirl Open Use logo, but only to represent the idea of Debian -- say, with the words "Debian derived" or as a logo for a link to Debian's site. They could not use it as a logo for Knoppix. > A DFSG-free solution that achieves the same goal is a license which > includes terms that require distributors to not misrepresent the origins > of the logo image, I don't believe that's enough to preserve the trademark. Since we don't get a do-over if this is done wrong, I think it's more important than usual to have something better than a layman's opinion. I'm not a trademark expert, but it's very clear that nobody else here is either. > document modifications, preserve the accompanying > license notices (which will reference the Debian Project), and even (if > we are willing to be GPL-incompatible) explicitly acknowlege the origins > of the logo. There are many other similar requirements Debian could > make to serve the same goals while still remaining DFSG-free. > > I see no reason why, if a license like that which has been proposed, > which would prohibit unmodified or insufficiently modified use by others > (unless that use refers to Debian), is accepted as DFSG-free, that a > license which said "You may not use this software as a basis for other > software that competes with ours, or to run a website which competes > with ours." would not be DFSG-free as well. The only difference here is > that we sympathise with the prohibitions of "undesirable" uses. No, there's a pretty clear difference there: one is dishonest in the meaning of the use, the other is an undesired purpose of the use. That's not clear enough to use as a firm rule, but it's very obvious to me that those are nothing like each other. Your proposed license, in any case, says that recipients may not use this software (the logo image) as a basis for other software (logo images) that competes with ours. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Raul Miller wrote: >>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>> But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless. >> >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >> >>>That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the >>>drafters of DFSG4. I would argue very strongly against that >>>interpretation. A name is just that, a name: some text moniker that >>>identifies a project. "GCC", "grub", "Linux", and "Apache" are all >>>names. A logo is not a name. >> >> You're changing the subject from what Brian was talking about: the set of >> "trademarks" has only a small area of overlap with the set of "logos". >> Sure, there are logos which don't identify anything, but those logos >> aren't trademarks. > > And in this case, the subject is a logo which is in the intersection of > the set of "logos" and the set of "trademarks". > > "trademark" does not inherently imply "name" in the DFSG4 sense, > although most trademarks are of names; neither does "logo". A name is a > name, not a logo, not a sound file, not a video clip, and not any other > similar work. A name does have an image and a sound, though. Its image might move. If I say "this doesn't pass the tex regression tests, so I can't call it TeX. I will call is Samuel, which is pronounced "Tech"" then I haven't really changed the name. > The sum total of what DFSG4 should permit a license to > require is a change in the top-level non-functional string identifier > for a work; Absolutely not. Requiring that derivatives of firefox stop using both the name 'firefox' and the image of a flaming fox is perfectly reasonable and free. > I would be hesitant to say that it can even require a global > s/NAME/SOMETHINGELSE/, especially if that name is ever used in > functional manner, such as libNAME.so.42 or NAME_functionname. Sure, of course functional components aren't names, or aren't purely names and so you can't freely require they be changed. > If we are going to permit arbitrary pieces of a work (including both > functional and non-functional components), such as imagery, to be > construed as a "name", then we have a serious Freeness problem. Nobody suggested functional components but you. I've only been talking about those parts of the work which name it. > * Use as the basis of any logo, for any organization. Yes, that's intentional. It's Debian's logo. > * Use on the cover of a book. Fine if it's a book about Debian, otherwise we don't want it to happen because it weakens our trademark rights. > * Use on a website (even of a competing distribution). As above. > * Use as the basis for hiding a steganographic message. Irrelevant -- it can be used, only if the overt message is a reference to Debian. > * Use for Debian-derived distributions (though it would not give them > the right to claim endorsement or affiliation, nor would any of the > other cases). Fine, if used as a reference to their Debian-derivedness. > * Many other uses, few of which fall in the category of "referring to > Debian", and none of which fall into the category of "fraud". > * Use as the basis for any other image, which can then be used for all > the same purposes. I'd love to see your proposed license which allows practical use on the cover of a book or on the pages of a competing distribution. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
