GFDL and Debian Logo
Sorry, I pasted the mail into the subject line by accident. Here is a secondy try: Hi, there is a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the Debian Open Use Logo http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Debian_logo.png may be subjected to the GFDL. The German Wikipedia does not accept any content not licensed as public domain or GFDL (e. g. no fair use because this is an American law only). This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project As far as I understand this sentence, the logo may not be used for other things and is not free according to the GFDL. The possible copyright violation notice, however, was removed by the uploader today. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild_Diskussion:Debian_logo.png (Although this page is in German, you may add English comments to it). Hendrik
Re: GFDL and Debian Logo
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 07:57:40AM +0200, Hendrik Brummermann wrote: there is a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the Debian Open Use Logo http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Debian_logo.png may be subjected to the GFDL. The German Wikipedia does not accept any content not licensed as public domain or GFDL (e. g. no fair use because this is an American law only). Wikis are still using the GFDL? That's discouraging, considering how badly broken it is; given the number of flaws that have been found in it, it's discouraging that any rational person would use it for anything at all. This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project As far as I understand this sentence, the logo may not be used for other things and is not free according to the GFDL. The possible copyright violation notice, however, was removed by the uploader today. The GFDL is a license; it's not something used to determine freeness. The DFSG does that. Are you mixing up abbreviations? -- Glenn Maynard
Re: GFDL and Debian Logo
On 09/22/04 01:57:40, Hendrik Brummermann wrote: there is a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the Debian Open Use Logo http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Debian_logo.png may be subjected to the GFDL. I'm not a lawyer and I don't speak for Debian, but I don't think that you can re-license the Open Use Logo under the GFDL. As I read it, the Open Use Logo license requires that you use the logo and derivatives _to_refer_to_the_Debian_project_. The GFDL doesn't preserve this requirement. If the logo were put under the GFDL, someone could use it to refer to an ice cream shop, an electrical component, or an astrological sign. What does Debian care if someone does that? Because under American (and I think some other) trademark regimes, if we allow people to use our trademark image to refer to just anything, it dilutes our trademark and makes it difficult for us to enforce. If someone put the Debian logo on, say, a Linux distribution without any Debian components inside, we would have a hard time making them stop. That logo can mean anything you want, they could say. This actually matters in US courts. So, my inexpert answer: NO. As a Wikipedian, I'd recommend removing the logo from German Wikipedia (although en: is a lot less rigorous about information freedom -- bravo to de:!). ~ESP
Re: GFDL and Debian Logo
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The Debian Open Use Logo is not compatible with the GFDL. If fair use is really that limited in Germany, then the German wikipedia is going to have to purge all logos. I doubt that any have anything approaching a free license. As a comparison, the English entries for IBM and HP have their logos, while the German entries do not. So at least that is consistent. Perhaps I'm being thick here, but what legal difference does the language make? Doesn't the German Wikipedia use the same licence as the English Wikipedia, and aren't they both accessible in Germany?
Re: GFDL and Debian Logo
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS schrieb: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The Debian Open Use Logo is not compatible with the GFDL. If fair use is really that limited in Germany, then the German wikipedia is going to have to purge all logos. I doubt that any have anything approaching a free license. As a comparison, the English entries for IBM and HP have their logos, while the German entries do not. So at least that is consistent. Perhaps I'm being thick here, but what legal difference does the language make? Doesn't the German Wikipedia use the same licence as the English Wikipedia, and aren't they both accessible in Germany? All wikipedias use the GFDL :-( The English community, however, accepts fair use images. The German community does not. For obvious reasons there are a lot of American in the English community but only a few in the German one. Although the wikipedia-servers are in America someone in Germany may get in trouble if he or she uploads images to a public server or uses them against the German law. As most people do not care about licenses the German community has decided to require GFDL or public domain. And of course the German Wikipedia should be free (ignoring the issues of the GFDL without invariant sections). Hendrik
Re: GFDL and Debian Logo
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: Perhaps I'm being thick here, but what legal difference does the language make? Doesn't the German Wikipedia use the same licence as the English Wikipedia, and aren't they both accessible in Germany? Hosting location and intended audience, I assume. Being accessible from a country doesn't normally require that you obey their laws, because that would cause no end of trouble and ridiculous results; there have finally been a few court rulings confirming this. Operating a project from a particular country, or operating it primarily for people from a particular country, on the other hand, is more likely to subject you to their laws. -- This space intentionally left blank.
