Re: Drawings similar to well known products. Copyright problems? [END]
Considering all what I said on debian-legal, I consider that the images provided in openclipart are not a problem concerning copyright or trademark. I am therefore closing this thread on this mailing-list and the bug report. Thanks to everybody who help me to understand the problem. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: The fact that we have conveniently ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far does not make it go away. It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: The fact that we have conveniently ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far does not make it go away. It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need to now (eg distributing source for GPL'd stuff). - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. I think the press will be interested to know that in this corner case Debian chose to get away with whatever it can get away with until it receives cease and desist letters because it thinks no one will enforce these trademarks so the risk is small. Or as I'm sure someone will say there's nothing wrong here so naturally we can include say the NFL logo, right? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;) Damn. I want a Mozilla shake ... -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. I think the press will be interested to know that in this corner case Debian chose to get away with whatever it can get away with until it receives cease and desist letters because it thinks no one will enforce these trademarks so the risk is small. Or as I'm sure someone will say there's nothing wrong here so naturally we can include say the NFL logo, right? You seem to be effectively diluting our list ... :) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard writes: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. Given that your original bug report (#289764) on the question used copyright when trademark or trade dress would have been appropriate, that your comment illegal to distribute in Germany is wrong (as previously discussed on this list), and that those images are provided for end-user use and not to promote a commercial product, I suspect that neither you nor the purported rights owners would have any traction in court. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. I think the press will be interested to know that in this corner case Debian chose to get away with whatever it can get away with until it receives cease and desist letters because it thinks no one will enforce these trademarks so the risk is small. Or as I'm sure someone will say there's nothing wrong here so naturally we can include say the NFL logo, right? Take your vendetta elsewhere please. We are not creating a competing product with any of these companies, nor are we even implying that they are endorsing us or are connected in any way to us by including these images. We are not using these images to advertise for Debian, so I seriously doubt that this would fall under trademark dilution. For what it's worth, I've had clipart collections for years which have plenty of images of these types, and these collections were distributed commercially. Removal of the pacman image is the only one that I can see any case for at all, but this can be dealt with in a far more polite and civilized manner than you've seen fit to conduct yourself. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I agree that this would be a good use of your time. I encourage you to dedicate yourself to this task ASAP. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? Context is everything. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm There's one now. It's perfectly fine to use logos or names of companies. They don't get to take the word out of the English language, or the image out of our visual library, by using it in trade. They merely get to enforce certain rules on behalf of the public -- which are there to prevent confusion, not to stamp out any mention of them. A clip art library like this is a perfect example of where it's just fine to use images of common objects: it's message-free. Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there. Rather, somebody who wants to use a picture of a Humvee in some other document will pick up this image and use it. He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;) Well said. We just can't claim that RJR Nabisco (or whoever owns the Oreo mark these days) packaged them that way. Cheers, - Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
* Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050111 11:45]: It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? I suggest printing it on the backside of the written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. Kind of makes Debian an accessory. Listen, everybody, these images are no big freaking deal. You write the company, they're gonna say who cares? This little thing doesn't matter. Debian is not an accessory to that act any more than the manufacturer of the Pinto would be. The law does not work like that. On the other hand, Debian has a tradition of supporting freedoms for users, and freedom of expression is a significant thing. Yanking images because they make someone uncomfortable is a bad precedent. The approach -- taking something clearly what it is and using it unless somebody tells you you can't or it's a big deal -- such as including the NFL logo would be a big deal, including this isn't, makes me rather uncomfortable. It is not Debian's problem if you are uncomfortable with legal acts. [Further FUD snipped.] Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart. Or Mr. Peanut. Hi, Kids! _ _ / / \/ |. .| \ / / \ \_/ / \ There. Now it's in your mail archive! Better be civil or I'll tell the Planter's Company about it. You've got the Freemason logo in there feature for feature! That's not original clip art. That's an original copy. Of something old enough that the copyright is expired and it's in the public domain. That symbol has been around for centuries. So your point is what, exactly? What law might we be violating by shipping that? Upon what principle of equity or fair dealing might we intrude? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in freely licensing the result. So package the Golden Arches. Like I said -- it's the intellecutal and creative laziness of including them. I can't imagine why anybody would *want* to look at them. How deriviative and uninspired. If you want such an image in Debian, work with someone to package it. If you do not want it in Debian, do not bother. Either way, kindly stop ordering others to package it. Plus it's icky to see people get away with anything they can possibly get away with WRT intellecutal property. Create brand new things and give them away. Create a new and exciting image of a lighter, just don't hold up your Bic and trace it. The point of Debian is to provide useful free software to users. I know of only three requirements for a Debian package: (a) the package must satisfy the DFSG; and (b) Debian and mirror operators may legally distribute the package; (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package. Notice there is no reference to or implication of getting away with anything. So far you have not made a plausible argument as to why the clip art package fails any of those requirements. While copyright law narrowly defines fair use, trademark law narrowly defines restricted use. See 15 USC 1114 and 15 USC 1125 for details. It's mostly disappointing. It is more than disappointing when people attempt FUD, especially in the face of repeated explanations and corrections from others. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hypothetical situation to chew on
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:54:54 +0100, Batist Paklons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:03:44 -0500, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me clarify. :-) Let me muddify. :-) I have few complaints with the treatment of material for which the authors *claim* copyright. My complaint is about material distributed willy-nilly by its authors with *no* copyright statements and *no* licensing information. Clearly the authors didn't intend all rights reserved, but that's what current law assumes. Actually, if it's something like a patch to an existing work, offered with the implicit understanding that it would be applied and become part of the upstream, then at least two defenses are available if copyright infringement is ever claimed: de minimis (especially with regard to stuff that is almost purely functional, since it's only the creative expression that's copyrightable) and implied license / promissory estoppel. The latter is evidently less available in civil law countries, and probably couldn't be used in any jurisdiction to claim that the maintainer has the authority to change license terms. In contrast, pre-1986 (I think) US law specified that works published (== deliberately distributed to the public by their authors) without a copyright statement went into the public domain. 1976; but otherwise basically correct (IANAL). See http://www.publaw.com/1976.html for some of the consequences; if an author limited the scope of the license under which a work was first published (say, in a magazine), and the publisher failed to tag her work with a copyright notice in her name (separated from the publisher's copyright notice for the magazine as a whole), then it would fall immediately into the public domain. Note that this email message is subject to copyright, and can't legally be reprinted without permission (except for fair use, such as quotation rights). Under pre-1986 US law, it would be public domain, because I didn't affix a copyright notice. Most non-defamatory uses of your e-mail in the US would probably fall under an implied license to redistribute and archive, since that's the prevailing practice on public mailing lists. This change has, frankly, made a freaking mess. This is why projects have to have statements like By submitting a patch, you agree to license it to us under (license of choice). Under the old law, submitting a patch of your own authorship to a public bug tracking system would be publishing it, and if you did so without a copyright notice -- public domain. Having such a statement helps establish what the prevailing practice is in a given forum, in order to reach an implied license; but copyright assignment and grant of right to sub-license can't be found without a binding written agreement, and browse-wrap won't cut it. That's one of the reasons that I disapprove of the FSF's claims that the GPL is not a contract; accepting submissions to a GPL project without obtaining good evidence at least of acceptance of the GPL is not a good idea. If you buy that modifying and creating a patch are strong evidence of acceptance of an offer of contract under the GPL, then it's not so bad -- as long as the license terms are unalterable. But the GPL lacks any language that would make the maintainer an agent of the copyright holder for the purpose of issuing a license under new terms, and I am rather skeptical even of the version 2 or later formula. The FSF recommends copyright assignment or release into the public domain to all GPL licensors, and insists on it for GNU projects, thereby dodging the question. I haven't thought the equivalent through for, say, BSD (not a contract, I think; a court might even call it release into the public domain, since the Planetary Motion court went out of its way to say that GPL release isn't) or MPL. But ultimately, a work with several copyright holders is -- and probably should be -- hard to relicense. As I understand US law (though my knowledge of it is just marginal), the publishing without copyright notice wouldn't make it public domain, but just not-enforceable. Very often in litigation, one would register an already (long before) published work, to be able to enforce it in the upcoming litigation. Registration is a formality separate from copyright notice, and now functions in the US primarily as an administrative determiner of provenance to which a court can kick back a question of fact when a person being sued for copyright infringement has plausible evidence that the copyright is no good. Nathanael had it right under the 1909 law -- no notice, no copyright. I am not sure about this, but as a defense (the 'no, I am not infringing your copyright'), it probably doesn't have to be registred, but to be sure you should ask a US lawyer. Registration establishes a rebuttable presumption of who wrote it when, and whether someone else owned it from the beginning under
Re: Are drawings of products trademark infringements?
Come to think of it, the copper top is a fun example; think of the use of the phrase in The Matrix. Also common slang for a redheaded person in parts of the US. There's an argument that copper and black helps get across the battery meaning of a tiny icon. Is Duracell in danger of losing control of its trade dress? :-) Cheers, - Michael P. S. In a laptop battery monitoring app, I would give the battery a black outline and denote the charge level with, say, blue (above about 1/3 full) or red (under 1/3). And then mention color-blindness in the docs to say that the colors are chosen on purely functional grounds. Otherwise you're almost certain to duplicate somebody's trade dress. Then again, you could live dangerously and change it from Duracell to Brand X after determining that it doesn't report its charge level reliably. :)
OleMiss Email Account cnlawren DEACTIVATED
This account is no longer active. Thus, your mail regarding [PMX:VIRUS] Re: will not be received.
Re: ReRegarding iraf
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:53:52 +0100, Jacobo Tarrio escribía: What defines GPL compatibility? Modify and distribute? A license is compatible with the GPL if it does not include any restriction not present in the GPL. In my latest message I didn't really say what I really meant, so I'll explain it correctly now :-) Have a program P and a library L; one of them is distributed under the terms of the GPL and the other is distributed under the terms of another license. When you link P with L, the resulting binary B is a work that is covered by the terms of both licenses at the same time. So, when you distribute it, you must satisfy the terms of both licenses at the same time. Now, by the terms of the GPL, the binary B must be licensed as a whole under the terms of the GPL (clause 2b). Furthermore, you cannot impose any restrictions not present in the terms of the GPL (clause 6). So, a license is compatible with the GPL if: - the license does not forbid anything allowed in the GPL - there's nothing which is compulsory in the license but not in the GPL In short: a license is compatible with the GPL if distributing a work in a manner that complies with the GPL would also comply with the license. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
Re: Questions about legal theory behind (L)GPL
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very interesting. It suggests that anyone who accepts copyright license under the GPL is bound by the no warranty clause, unless it's overridden by statutory fair trade provisions. Right? You are right, but the 'no warranty clause' is somewhat obnoxious as an example, because it will be overridden. Under Belgian civil law it is not possible to exonerate for every liability. You cannot exonerate for intentional damage (for instance a program released under GPL that intentional causes damage). And then there is some special consumer protection and product liability in Europe that even goes further[1]. But the more interesting aspect of the veil of agency (I like that term - it is quite close to how we call it), is that someone who is not the copyright holder, but worked on the software (e.g. outsourcing with a clause that transfers all economic authorship rights to the contractor), cannot be sued for liability under the GPL. Instead the copyright holder must be sued, and will not be held liable insofar as he is legally allowed. Kind regards batist [1] two European directives that, each in their way, can cause liability: directive n° 374 of 1985 on liability for defective products: if the software is incorporated in a tangible product directive n° 44 of 1999 on the sale of consumer goods, insofar as the software isn't of the quality and performance which are normal in goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect (off course, the low price for open source software does lead to lower expectations). both can easily be found on http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
Re: Drawings similar to well known products. Copyright problems? [END]
Considering all what I said on debian-legal, I consider that the images provided in openclipart are not a problem concerning copyright or trademark. I am therefore closing this thread on this mailing-list and the bug report. Thanks to everybody who help me to understand the problem. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: The fact that we have conveniently ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far does not make it go away. It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? Cheers, Nick
Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name. They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called Mozilla Firefox and are claiming Firefox as an extra name. Er, that's what a trademark is :-) Nabisco isn't called Oreo, but Oreo is still their trademark. As you have just shown above, you are able to use Oreo without an agreement with them. I suspect we are able to use Firefox without your agreement, as long as use is honest like proper use of a name. MF may be seeking to establish an over-strict hold over their trademark by convincing Debian to make an unnecessary agreement. On a purely pragmatic note, if it's fine to require the name is changed for modified versions (like Debian's can be), it's not clear how to do that at present - do we know if it is even possible? Read back in the various threads on this topic - I've been explaining how it's done. Sorry, I thought you had only described how to make a build avoiding use of the trademarked logos, but there are some places where the name is hardwired? The trademarked name also appears in the supposedly non-trademark logo graphics, it seems. It feels like Mozilla may be free but vexatious. Unsurprisingly, I'm a little grumpy at them claiming they are behaving well while making more work for us. I apologise that our trademark policy makes more work for you, but I do think we are behaving well in that all of our software is still Free. I am not convinced that it's free if your trademark is used. Fortunately, the name is an avoidable problem. It's just a lot of work, so the wondering is necessary. Then there are the claims that X or Y from MF will discuss it, even though past attempts failed and it seems nothing has changed on MF's side. I'm here and I'm not going away. Will you keep tracking discussions even if others from MF are involved?
Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is Debian's trademark policy freedom-restricting? [...] Yes. Why do you think it's under review? It's causing some minor silly situations when it interacts with copyrights of free software. I wasn't aware it was under review. The SPI Debian trademark committee was announced in October 2003. I am not sure of its current status. The logo problem last appeared in SPI board meeting minutes in October 2004. I believe Branden has asked for it to be discussed in February 2005. You wrote this, but you claimed that it stops the default search engine being changed away from my favourite invite spammers g**gl* - is this a contradiction? No, at least not by my understanding of what makes code free (i.e. that it's under a Free licence). How does your trademark licence restricting permitted modifications (essentially making part of your code invariant) qualify as a Free licence? Is it free only because we can change the name and discard the trademark licence?
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:45:21PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote: The fact that we have conveniently ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far does not make it go away. It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need to now (eg distributing source for GPL'd stuff). - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:46:02AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: I can understand why I can't call it mozilla, because that's their name. They are not called firefox though. They make a thing called Mozilla Firefox and are claiming Firefox as an extra name. Er, that's what a trademark is :-) Nabisco isn't called Oreo, but Oreo is still their trademark. As you have just shown above, you are able to use Oreo without an agreement with them. I suspect we are able to use Firefox without your agreement, as long as use is honest like proper use of a name. MF may be seeking to establish an over-strict hold over their trademark by convincing Debian to make an unnecessary agreement. Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request for IPR review
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:28:05PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote: Quoting Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:38:01PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote: I've been asked to get some sort of review from the free software world of the new OASIS[1] IPR draft. I tried to review it myself, but the legalese is a bit on the opaque side for me. [...] Can anyone who is interested in reviewing the document please contact me? I'll send you the document for a quick review. Did anyone get in touch with you about this? Hi Branden, Yes, I did get a an initial response from MJRay and sent him the document. But am still waiting for some follow-up feedback on the document itself. You might want to put out a renewed call, then. Perhaps MJ got swamped. (I know I sometimes do.) -- G. Branden Robinson| I am only good at complaining. Debian GNU/Linux | You don't want me near your code. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Dan Jacobson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Drawings similar to well known products. Copyright problems?
O Luns, 10 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 18:51:32 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen escribía: I wouldn't be horribly surprised if the names hummer or rubik are Is HMMV a registered trademark? -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. I think the press will be interested to know that in this corner case Debian chose to get away with whatever it can get away with until it receives cease and desist letters because it thinks no one will enforce these trademarks so the risk is small. Or as I'm sure someone will say there's nothing wrong here so naturally we can include say the NFL logo, right?
Re: Drawings similar to well known products. Copyright problems? [END]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:03:39AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote: Considering all what I said on debian-legal, I consider that the images provided in openclipart are not a problem concerning copyright or trademark. I am therefore closing this thread on this mailing-list and the bug report. Thanks to everybody who help me to understand the problem. Er, you can close a bug report if you like, but there's no such thing as closing a thread on a Debian mailing list. :) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:12:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;) Damn. I want a Mozilla shake ... -- Glenn Maynard
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard writes: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. Given that your original bug report (#289764) on the question used copyright when trademark or trade dress would have been appropriate, that your comment illegal to distribute in Germany is wrong (as previously discussed on this list), and that those images are provided for end-user use and not to promote a commercial product, I suspect that neither you nor the purported rights owners would have any traction in court. Michael Poole
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. I think the press will be interested to know that in this corner case Debian chose to get away with whatever it can get away with until it receives cease and desist letters because it thinks no one will enforce these trademarks so the risk is small. Or as I'm sure someone will say there's nothing wrong here so naturally we can include say the NFL logo, right? Take your vendetta elsewhere please. We are not creating a competing product with any of these companies, nor are we even implying that they are endorsing us or are connected in any way to us by including these images. We are not using these images to advertise for Debian, so I seriously doubt that this would fall under trademark dilution. For what it's worth, I've had clipart collections for years which have plenty of images of these types, and these collections were distributed commercially. Removal of the pacman image is the only one that I can see any case for at all, but this can be dealt with in a far more polite and civilized manner than you've seen fit to conduct yourself. - David Nusinow
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I agree that this would be a good use of your time. I encourage you to dedicate yourself to this task ASAP. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different?
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? Context is everything. - David Nusinow
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm There's one now. It's perfectly fine to use logos or names of companies. They don't get to take the word out of the English language, or the image out of our visual library, by using it in trade. They merely get to enforce certain rules on behalf of the public -- which are there to prevent confusion, not to stamp out any mention of them. A clip art library like this is a perfect example of where it's just fine to use images of common objects: it's message-free. Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there. Rather, somebody who wants to use a picture of a Humvee in some other document will pick up this image and use it. He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard writes: Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? Without knowing context and intent, we cannot answer; since you have not related that to Debian, I do not wish to go into details. If you want details, various web search engines (popular possibilities not named lest you misinterpret the mention as trademark disparagement or dilution) can find sites written by lawyers that discuss details of coypright law and how purpose and context affect trademark use. Michael Poole
Re: mozilla thunderbird trademark restrictions / still dfsg free?
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;) Well said. We just can't claim that RJR Nabisco (or whoever owns the Oreo mark these days) packaged them that way. Cheers, - Michael
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
* Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050111 11:45]: It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in /usr/share/common-licenses/ because the GPL license requires us to *accompany* the compiled form with the license text, rather than going beyond and requiring that the license text be *included* in the compiled form (that is fairly more demanding). Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? I suggest printing it on the backside of the written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. Kind of makes Debian an accessory. Listen, everybody, these images are no big freaking deal. You write the company, they're gonna say who cares? This little thing doesn't matter. The approach -- taking something clearly what it is and using it unless somebody tells you you can't or it's a big deal -- such as including the NFL logo would be a big deal, including this isn't, makes me rather uncomfortable. It's like this Clip Art package is the kernel and these couple of random images -- they are clearly what they are -- are unaudited contributions by a few people that spoil the whole thing. My intitution tells me that the picture of the McDonalds logo on the BBC website and the inclusion of the FreeMason or Duracell or Rubik's cube are different things. One is a case of journalism or fair use and the other is a case of merchandising - making something more attractive and encouraging you to use it because it's there. But don't flame me, I get your point. I still have a queasy feeling about it, though -- mostly what it represents. It's just not nice to use other people's stuff and there's no good reason for a picture of a rubik's cube to be in there. You should go ask the guy who made the rubik's cube for a picture.
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. Kind of makes Debian an accessory. Listen, everybody, these images are no big freaking deal. You write the company, they're gonna say who cares? This little thing doesn't matter. Debian is not an accessory to that act any more than the manufacturer of the Pinto would be. The law does not work like that. On the other hand, Debian has a tradition of supporting freedoms for users, and freedom of expression is a significant thing. Yanking images because they make someone uncomfortable is a bad precedent. The approach -- taking something clearly what it is and using it unless somebody tells you you can't or it's a big deal -- such as including the NFL logo would be a big deal, including this isn't, makes me rather uncomfortable. It is not Debian's problem if you are uncomfortable with legal acts. [Further FUD snipped.] Michael Poole
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. Kind of makes Debian an accessory. Listen, everybody, these images are no big freaking deal. You write the company, they're gonna say who cares? This little thing doesn't matter. No, that's not an accessory. And a typical company will take the approach which generates less billable hours for their very expensive lawyers, and say No, you can't do that. We may not have rights to stop you, but we're sure not giving you permission. The approach -- taking something clearly what it is and using it unless somebody tells you you can't or it's a big deal -- such as including the NFL logo would be a big deal, including this isn't, makes me rather uncomfortable. I can't make any sense out of this sentence, except to tell that you're unhappy. I suspect the problem is in this phrase something clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to stop others from selling batteries which are confusable with Duracell batteries, or from falsely implying that Duracell, Inc. endorses some product or idea. Look, I can even tell you this: I have two batteries, black with copper ends, they say Duracell on them, and I use them to power a Strange and Unusual Device. It's like this Clip Art package is the kernel and these couple of random images -- they are clearly what they are -- are unaudited contributions by a few people that spoil the whole thing. No, we know who drew these, who owns the copyrights on them, and how to contact these people. My intitution tells me that the picture of the McDonalds logo on the BBC website and the inclusion of the FreeMason or Duracell or Rubik's cube are different things. One is a case of journalism or fair use and the other is a case of merchandising - making something more attractive and encouraging you to use it because it's there. But don't flame me, I get your point. I still have a queasy feeling about it, though -- mostly what it represents. It's just not nice to use other people's stuff and there's no good reason for a picture of a rubik's cube to be in there. You should go ask the guy who made the rubik's cube for a picture. I haven't flamed you. You have flamed this list, and made juvenile appeals to authority to cover your ignorance of the law. This is not other people's stuff. This is pictures of other people's stuff. There is no inherent property right to imagery of your public stuff. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:36:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: Removal of the pacman image is the only one that I can see any case for at all Even if this were once true (which I doubt), there's no chance that anybody still has a valid trademark on pacman; it's diluted to the point of being common usage. Random example: http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-03-04res=l This sort of stuff is common. Now, if you were making a *game* and used it as a character, *then* you might have a problem. Oh, and while we're on the subject of trademarks: http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2001-07-11res=l -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart. Or Mr. Peanut. You've got the Freemason logo in there feature for feature! That's not original clip art. That's an original copy.
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:38:34PM -0500, William Ballard wrote: I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart. Or Mr. Peanut. What good would that accomplish? [I'm hoping you can give me a meaningful answer.] Also, is there some reason to represent a Mr. Peanut instead of just a regular peanut? Are we trying to sell those products or something? These are real questions -- some sorts of uses are appropriate for a trademark, and some require that the trademark holder either protest strongly, in a legal sense or lose control over them. The details of this sort of thing depend on the trademark. In other words, if $X is a problem with trademark $a, $X could be completely legal with trademark $b. As an aside, if you want to get some company's logo, usually a google image search of the form `company name logo` will get you a copy. Of course, there are still copyright issues, but if you're just going for a general idea of what typical use is for a specific trademark, google is a good place to start. [But note that this is just a start -- this will only find you pages which have that particular text associated with the image. For example, you'll find ten times as many image hits searching for `square compass` than with `freemasons logo`... not that all of those hits are relevant.] Anyways, if you want to see something packaged which hasn't been, it's usually a good idea to package it yourself. If you want to assert that some use of some trademark is illegal please present a coherent (and accurate) explanation of what sort of problem that use causes for the trademark holder. -- Raul
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart. Or Mr. Peanut. Hi, Kids! _ _ / / \/ |. .| \ / / \ \_/ / \ There. Now it's in your mail archive! Better be civil or I'll tell the Planter's Company about it. You've got the Freemason logo in there feature for feature! That's not original clip art. That's an original copy. Of something old enough that the copyright is expired and it's in the public domain. That symbol has been around for centuries. So your point is what, exactly? What law might we be violating by shipping that? Upon what principle of equity or fair dealing might we intrude? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
I hope the thread will just die soon, we're going round and round. CC me on replies so I don't have to start new thread. Regarding: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00359.html Raul said: As an aside, if you want to get some company's logo, usually a google image search of the form `company name logo` will get you a copy. From somebody with permission to use it or not yet hassled because it's small potatoes. I say in kindness and not hostility: put your money where your mouth is. Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart.
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I say in kindness and not hostility: put your money where your mouth is. Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart. File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I say in kindness and not hostility: put your money where your mouth is. Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart. File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer. Well, my respect for the originality of FOSS is diminished by the fact that some people value having a image of Pac-Man as An Original Work. The fact that anybody finds this desirable is the most dissapointing thing. I'm seeing an example of people getting away whatever they can possibly get away with in gray areas. That's exactly why I grew to revile Microsoft.
Re: Manpages licensed under GFDL without the license text included
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:00:02PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: Right. And when the .deb gets distributed on its own? Then whoever does the distributing should ensure that they comply with the terms of the licence of the software they're distributing, just as they need to now (eg distributing source for GPL'd stuff). Um, that's us. Or do you want to put a big banner up on all our archives telling people that no matter which package they want, they *must* also download whichever package it is that contains the common licenses? Cheers, Nick
Re: cc me on reply Package The Golden Arches
William Ballard writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:57:37PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: These gray areas are a product of your imagination and your lack of understanding of copyright and trademark law. There's nothing even remotely sketchy about depicting real items in art or in freely licensing the result. So package the Golden Arches. Like I said -- it's the intellecutal and creative laziness of including them. I can't imagine why anybody would *want* to look at them. How deriviative and uninspired. If you want such an image in Debian, work with someone to package it. If you do not want it in Debian, do not bother. Either way, kindly stop ordering others to package it. Plus it's icky to see people get away with anything they can possibly get away with WRT intellecutal property. Create brand new things and give them away. Create a new and exciting image of a lighter, just don't hold up your Bic and trace it. The point of Debian is to provide useful free software to users. I know of only three requirements for a Debian package: (a) the package must satisfy the DFSG; and (b) Debian and mirror operators may legally distribute the package; (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package. Notice there is no reference to or implication of getting away with anything. So far you have not made a plausible argument as to why the clip art package fails any of those requirements. While copyright law narrowly defines fair use, trademark law narrowly defines restricted use. See 15 USC 1114 and 15 USC 1125 for details. It's mostly disappointing. It is more than disappointing when people attempt FUD, especially in the face of repeated explanations and corrections from others. Michael Poole
