[URGENT] Logo license

[Wichert Akkerman]

I'm afraid I've let this linger way to long... People: we need
logo licenses, and soon!

I propose we start by determining what will be (dis)allowed in the
licenses and then write it up properly.

How about this for a simple start:

`liberal license'
=
I. Can be used by everyone
II. May not be used to advertise non-free products


`official license'
==
I. may only be used if:
   a) the product it is used for is made using a documented procudere we
  make (for example official CD-creation)
   b) if we give approval for its use

II. may be used if an official part of debian (decided using the rules
in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear that only
this part is officialy approved

III. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product, if (some
  conditions here)

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/


pgpbvoCIIAKji.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [URGENT] Logo license

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 12:40:14PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I'm afraid I've let this linger way to long... People: we need
> logo licenses, and soon!
> 
> How about this for a simple start:
> 
> `liberal license'
> =
> I. Can be used by everyone
> II. May not be used to advertise non-free products

This ought to be able to be *really* freely used -- to advertise Debian
compatability for WordPerfect, to advertise printers and laptops that
work with Debian, to advertise "hey, I think debian's cool", you name it.

How about just "Copyright (c) 1999 Debian; this logo may be used by anyone
to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endoresement by
the project" or something?

> `official license'
> ==
> I. may only be used if:
>a) the product it is used for is made using a documented procudere we
>   make (for example official CD-creation)
>b) if we give approval for its use

ie, we'll have a bunch of very specific licenses "Official CD", "Official
Mirror". Some sort of "Debian Inside" would be nice too.

> II. may be used if an official part of debian (decided using the rules
> in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear that only
> this part is officialy approved

I think it'd be better for the developer's to have to actually look at
the product first, or develop some general rules first. If the Debian
consulting collective takes off, registered consultants could be given
permission to use the real logo, and non-registered ones could just
use the liberal one, eg.
 
> III. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product, if (some
>   conditions here)

...if? Just ".", surely. It's just a logo, it's not like we're saying
they can't distribute Debian or anything anymore. And by specifically
giving out licenses in the first place, this becomes much less likely.

IMO, etc.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''


pgpdfPZ2z9hO5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [URGENT] Logo license

[Gordon Matzigkeit]

> Wichert Akkerman writes:

 WA> `liberal license'
 WA> I. Can be used by everyone
 WA> II. May not be used to advertise non-free products

I, personally, would like to see the `liberal' logo be at least as
free as verbatim copying without restriction.  To me, it would suck if
Debian's only real logos prohibited use by non-free people.

That would be tantamount to the GNU Project making GNU trademarked,
and then refusing to allow anybody to use GNU(tm) to describe their
product unless it fit with certain guidelines.

Not even RMS has that little faith in people.  It's been good enough
to allow the word to be used anywhere *legally*, but then just to
apply *social* pressure to get people to stop using the word for
inappropriate purposes.

Why not simply: 

  Copyright (C) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
  Verbatim copying and distribution of this logo is permitted in any
  medium, provided this notice is preserved.

If people want to do something other than verbatim copying, then that
can be handled on a case-by-case basis by SPI.

 WA> `official license'
 WA> I. may only be used if: a) the product it is used for is made
 WA> using a documented procudere we make (for example official
 WA> CD-creation) b) if we give approval for its use

 WA> II. may be used if an official part of debian (decided using the
 WA> rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear
 WA> that only this part is officialy approved

 WA> III. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product, if
 WA> (some conditions here)

Sure, whatever.  As long as the liberal version of the logo is at
least as free as verbatim copying, I don't have a serious problem with
any of these conditions for the official logo.

Having said that, my personal preference would be to simply say that
the `official license' cannot be used to advertise any non-free
software, and furthermore cannot be distributed with a CD unless that
CD is made via documented procedures.

Perhaps a special exception would be made to allow the inclusion of an
``official Debian non-free CD'' with such a CD set, but I'd prefer
that non-free never be branded as ``official''.


That's my opinion in a nutshell:

liberal: anybody can use this verbatim for whatever they want

official: cannot be used to promote any non-DFSG-free software, nor
for a CD set that wasn't burned via official procedures, otherwise you
can use this verbatim for whatever you want

So, the idea would be that somebody who made non-free software that
worked with Debian would only be able to use the `liberal' logo.
If you make free software, and you want to promote Debian, you can use
the `official' logo however you want, so long as it isn't in
conjunction with a non-official CD.


I feel morally uncomfortable about adding more legal restrictions than
that, unless there is a really, really good reason.  I think any other
fine-grained restrictions can be accomplished via social pressure a la
RMS (and I paraphrase):  ``Stop doing that.  If you don't stop, I'll
send you another e-mail like this one once a day for the rest of your
life, write an essay about you, publish it widely, and generally
help many people to understand why you're a selfish bastard with no
concern for the GNU Project's real goals.''

Most people, if they're confronted with that, honour RMS's wishes
quickly.  The people who don't are usually the ones who wouldn't
misuse the word GNU in the first place.

I think that with over 400 developers, social pressure could be even
more effective, requiring legal restrictions only for the most blatant
abusers.


If you're paranoid, add a clause saying that we reserve the right to
change the official logo's license retroactively in order to prevent
it from being used to undermine the Debian project.

-- 
 Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/)
Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)

Re: [URGENT] Logo license

[James A. Treacy]

On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 08:52:51AM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> 
>  WA> `official license'
>  WA> I. may only be used if: a) the product it is used for is made
>  WA> using a documented procudere we make (for example official
>  WA> CD-creation) b) if we give approval for its use
> 
>  WA> II. may be used if an official part of debian (decided using the
>  WA> rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear
>  WA> that only this part is officialy approved
> 
>  WA> III. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product, if
>  WA> (some conditions here)
> 
> Sure, whatever.  As long as the liberal version of the logo is at
> least as free as verbatim copying, I don't have a serious problem with
> any of these conditions for the official logo.
> 
> Having said that, my personal preference would be to simply say that
> the `official license' cannot be used to advertise any non-free
> software, and furthermore cannot be distributed with a CD unless that
> CD is made via documented procedures.
> 
> Perhaps a special exception would be made to allow the inclusion of an
> ``official Debian non-free CD'' with such a CD set, but I'd prefer
> that non-free never be branded as ``official''.

In the case where a vendor distributes the Official Debian CD set plus
a disk containing non-free software they should be allowed to use the
term Official Debian CD as long as they mention the set contains additional
material. For example, 'Official Debian CD + Wordperfect 8.0'.

Jay Treacy

Re: [URGENT] Logo license

[Dale Scheetz]

On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> 
> I'm afraid I've let this linger way to long... People: we need
> logo licenses, and soon!
> 
> I propose we start by determining what will be (dis)allowed in the
> licenses and then write it up properly.
> 
> How about this for a simple start:
> 
> `liberal license'
> =
> I. Can be used by everyone
> II. May not be used to advertise non-free products

This seems more in keeping with our position of software freedom. I'm in
favor of this approach.

> 
> 
> `official license'
> ==
> I. may only be used if:
>a) the product it is used for is made using a documented procudere we
>   make (for example official CD-creation)
>b) if we give approval for its use
> 
> II. may be used if an official part of debian (decided using the rules
> in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear that only
> this part is officialy approved
> 
> III. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product, if (some
>   conditions here)
> 
These conditions would make creating a "commercial" distribution, based on
Debian, almost totally impossible. I certainly wouldn't be able to use the
logo on any Debian products that I might distribute, and I would find that
disapointing.

Waiting is,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
  Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road
  e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Re: [URGENT] Logo license

[Phillip R. Jaenke]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> I'm afraid I've let this linger way to long... People: we need
> logo licenses, and soon!

Aye, I've noticed. *scribbles in notebook more and more* I need more hours
in the day! AGH! ;P
 
> I propose we start by determining what will be (dis)allowed in the
> licenses and then write it up properly.

Okay, time for the resident 'who-knows-what-license-he-supports-really'
guy to pop up with his $0.02USD. ;)

> How about this for a simple start:


A good start.. here's my idea.

1. Anyone may use the Debian logo to either promote or label a
   directly-Debian related software, hardware, or other product.

   1a. Directly-Debian related is defined as officially being a part of
   Debian, Software in the Public Interest, or other legal entities
   recognized by Debian or SPI.

   1b. Use of the Debian logo in multi-distribution CD sets (ie; Debian,
   Slackware, and Stampede) is permitted, providing that no one logo
   is more prominent than any other logo.
   
   1b1. Prominence is determined only by size. For example, a CD set
with four logos at 1 square inch each on the cover, including
the Debian logo, is permissable. A CD set with a 2 square inch
Debian logo, and three other 1 square inch logos is not
permissable. 

2. Use of the Debian logo to promote a commercial product is expressly
   prohibited without the prior written consent of either Debian or SPI.

   2a. Commercial products are defined as those products which are
   commercial in nature, and sold for profit. For example, Cheap*Bytes
   would be allowed to use the Debian logo for their $1.99 Debian CD.
   They would NOT be allowed to use the Debian logo for a CD set
   containing Debian and AcceleratedX, or Debian and ApplixWare, for
   example, unless given written consent.

3. Use of the Debian logo to link to the Debian website is permissable, as
   is use of the logo to link to email addresses of recognized Debian
   developers, as is use of the logo to link to Debian FTP sites or files.

So there you have it folks. What exactly does all that semi-legalese mean?

Any Debian developer can use the Debian logo to promote their package. Any
user or developer may use the Debian logo to link to any Debian related
resource. Any CD manufacturer can put the Debian logo on their Debian CDs.
Someone selling CD sets like Debian + ApplixWare must obtain written
permission from Debian and/or SPI to use the logo. 

So, in short, anybody can use the logo in a way that I personally believe
is positive to Debian, ie; linking to us, linking to resources, etc.
Anyone who wants to use the logo to enhance sales of a commercial product,
has to ask.

You'll have to pardon my ignorance of the exact business structure and
relationship between Debian and SPI. It's my understanding that they're
nearly one and the same, and that SPI can give permission in place of
Debian. If this is wrong, please feel free to correct me. 

As always, comments, feedback, etc are welcome. PLEASE *PLEASE* CC me if
you only email debian-legal, as I am NOT subscribed there. Also, please
don't anticipate a quick reply. It's VERY likely that I will be accepting
a new job in just over an hour and a half, so anticipate me being pretty
busy for a bit. If I do accept the position, I'm going to be quite
literally overwhelmed by paperwork for the next week to week and a half.

+-+--+
| Phillip R. Jaenke   | "Not all wisdom comes from without;  |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  much wisdom can only come from  |
| InterNIC: PRJ5  |  within. Only you can teach yourself |
| Professional Unix Guru  |  some of the most important lessons  | 
+-+  of life." --Takes-Many-Roads,   |
Project Head  |  Silent Strider Theurge  |
the Linux-RS/6000 Project +--+
- - http://www.nls.net/mp/prj/linux/ -- http://www.nls.net/mp/prj/ -

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNtbmXMES8LwwGtVlAQEiMQP+NgJlDEgQIpxV0sP+zsLfqY8+fYZnTIVT
pDu/oJ7qThWKS4adtAw/+u8sddJcvhWY6c0PMbk5YpkT4N4m76t8xb/pqUFbQB8R
Z/s+Slpq9WpzWBn7L5kcTbv39qO17cbZVlAvu4tWFTap+N/6qF7+KmL8ltGeCCLx
YAo0Tbjdvzk=
=45rr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [URGENT] Logo license

[John Hasler]

Gordon Matzigkeit writes:
> Liberal:
> Copyright (C) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
> Verbatim copying and distribution of this logo is permitted in any
> medium, provided this notice is preserved.

That seems quite sufficient.

> Official:

I see no need for this at all.
-- 
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: [URGENT] Logo license

[Christian Leutloff]

Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> `liberal license'
> =
> I. Can be used by everyone
> II. May not be used to advertise non-free products

Why shouldn't a commercial company says "Yes it runs with Debian" or
"It's a Debian based product" and use the Debian logo for this
purpose!? 

IMHO a liberal licence would be

I. Can be used for any purpuse by everyone
II. but modification is prohibited

Bye
  Christian

-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Christian Leutloff, Aachen, Germany  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.oche.de/~leutloff/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.de.debian.org/


pgphjTiLPuOg1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [URGENT] Logo license

[Chris Waters]

Christian Leutloff wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > `liberal license'
> > =
> > I. Can be used by everyone
> > II. May not be used to advertise non-free products

> Why shouldn't a commercial company says "Yes it runs with Debian" or
> "It's a Debian based product" and use the Debian logo for this
> purpose!?

You mean proprietary?  (There's certainly no reason why a commercial
company that produces *free* software couldn't use it.)  But I agree --
if someone wants to sell a proprietary product based on Debian (which is
fine as long as they provide the source to all the parts they're legally
required to provide source for), we shouldn't force them to sort through
the system, find all occurances of the logo, and purge them.

> IMHO a liberal licence would be

> I. Can be used for any purpuse by everyone
> II. but modification is prohibited

If modification is prohibited, then it can't be converted to a "Yes it
runs with Debian" logo, since that would be modification.

My original suggestion was that we allow it to be used in Debian or to
refer to Debian, period.  I still think that works better than any of
the other suggestions I've seen.  That's essentially the definition of a
trademark, and, if we're not going to make the logo an official
trademark, then I think we should license it *as if* it were a
trademark.
-- 
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: [URGENT] Logo license

[Christian Leutloff]

Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Christian Leutloff wrote:
> > Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > > `liberal license'
> > > =
> > > I. Can be used by everyone
> > > II. May not be used to advertise non-free products
> 
> > Why shouldn't a commercial company says "Yes it runs with Debian" or
> > "It's a Debian based product" and use the Debian logo for this
> > purpose!?
> 
> You mean proprietary?  

yes, sure. Debian is planned to be the master distrubtion for all
other distributions. Therefor the logo must be allowed in the same
places where our distribution can be used.


> My original suggestion was that we allow it to be used in Debian or to
> refer to Debian, period.  I still think that works better than any of
> the other suggestions I've seen.  That's essentially the definition of a
> trademark, and, if we're not going to make the logo an official
> trademark, then I think we should license it *as if* it were a
> trademark.

This view seems to be the best I've seen so far (my suggestions
included).

Thanks
 Chrsitian

-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Christian Leutloff, Aachen, Germany  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.oche.de/~leutloff/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.de.debian.org/


pgpua9KxRZZ5N.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [URGENT] Logo license

[Aron Fielder]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Anthony Towns
 writes

Hello, I'm not sure where this mail will go, but let's see what happens.

>This ought to be able to be *really* freely used -- to advertise Debian
>compatability for WordPerfect, to advertise printers and laptops that
>work with Debian, to advertise "hey, I think debian's cool", you name it.
This is a very good idea.

My next point isn't really a legal point. But there doesn't seem to be a
small logo for use on web pages which say 'Powered by Debian' like some
of the other distributions, at the moment I have the Debian penguin on
there and this probably contravenes the current licence. The gimp
contest has some good results for an official/liberal logo, but most of
the logos are portrait oblongs or squares and these look a bit messy on
web pages. Maybe a third logo could be produced?
-- 
Aron Fielder

Re: [URGENT] Logo license

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously Aron Fielder wrote:
> My next point isn't really a legal point. But there doesn't seem to be a
> small logo for use on web pages which say 'Powered by Debian' like some
> of the other distributions

But we could easily modify the liberal logo for that. In fact anyone
can modify it to add some personal touch.

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/


pgppnc73qjMpQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [URGENT] Logo license

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > `official license'
> > ==
> > I. may only be used if:
> >a) the product it is used for is made using a documented procudere we
> >   make (for example official CD-creation)
> >b) if we give approval for its use
> > 
> > II. may be used if an official part of debian (decided using the rules
> > in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear that only
> > this part is officialy approved
> > 
> > III. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product, if (some
> >   conditions here)
> > 
> These conditions would make creating a "commercial" distribution, based on
> Debian, almost totally impossible. I certainly wouldn't be able to use the
> logo on any Debian products that I might distribute, and I would find that
> disapointing.

How so? The idea is to have a set of strict guidelines so that people
can use the official logo for some products if they use a procedure
that we set without asking us, and for all other uses there is I.b.

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/


pgpgSuTAsux0C.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [URGENT] Logo license

[Wichert Akkerman]

Previously Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> Why not simply: 
> 
>   Copyright (C) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
>   Verbatim copying and distribution of this logo is permitted in any
>   medium, provided this notice is preserved.

That doesn't really work, since we want people to be able to take the
liberal logo and modify it to say `powered by Debian' or so. I prefer
the this modified version of a suggestion from Anthony:

Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
this logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to
the Debian project, but does not indicate endoresement by the
project.

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/


pgpb754rizD0s.pgp
Description: PGP signature