Archives
Archives
| From: | Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-nfp@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-nfp] Reconsider the license of the "g" logo (item for Trustees meeting) | ||
| Date: | Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:45:37 | ||
| Message-Id: | 22579.34562.473649.127409@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-nfp] Reconsider the license of the "g" logo (item for Trustees meeting) by "Robin H. Johnson" |
||
| 1 | >>>>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016, Robin H Johnson wrote: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | > TL;DR: |
| 4 | > 1. Move artwork to CC-BY v4 |
| 5 | > 2. update name/logo page to say 'trademark licensing' |
| 6 | |
| 7 | From reading the long version I guess that in 1. above you mean |
| 8 | CC-BY-SA (not CC-BY)? |
| 9 | |
| 10 | > [...] |
| 11 | |
| 12 | > So where do we go? |
| 13 | > 0. Educate users that they are taking two licenses (copyright & trademark) |
| 14 | > 1. Change copyright license on all Gentoo-owned to BY-SA (v4, further below) |
| 15 | > 2. EXPLICITLY grant trademark licenses (most of this is done in the |
| 16 | > name/logo page already): |
| 17 | > 2.1. Non-commercial works: no Foundation permission needed. |
| 18 | > 2.2. Non-transformative Commercial works with Foundation permission only. |
| 19 | > 2.3. Highly-Transformative commercial works UNCERTAIN (I'm not decided). |
| 20 | > 3. Note that the artwork remains available under prior versions of the |
| 21 | > license as well [6] |
| 22 | > 4. Note that the name/logo guidelines page is the trademark usage licensing. |
| 23 | |
| 24 | I agree with all of these points. |
| 25 | |
| 26 | About 2.3, I don't see why this needs to be distinguished from 2.2. |
| 27 | Who decides what is highly-transformative? (So anyone distributing |
| 28 | such works might be well-advised to ask the Foundation in any case.) |
| 29 | |
| 30 | > Why CC v4? |
| 31 | > - v4 requires all modifications be noted [1] |
| 32 | > - v4 BY-SA (but not BY-NC-SA) is GPLv3 compatible [3] |
| 33 | > - v4 auto-reinstatement on violations [4] |
| 34 | > - v4 trademark explicitly-not-licensed [5] |
| 35 | > - v3+v4 "no endorsement clause" to block advertising [2] |
| 36 | |
| 37 | The only reason I had suggested CC-BY-SA version 2.5 or 3.0 was |
| 38 | compatibility to the bulk of existing documentation which tends to be |
| 39 | under CC-BY-SA-3.0 (e.g. the wiki). |
| 40 | |
| 41 | This is not really a problem though, because CC licenses have a |
| 42 | built-in upgrade clause allowing distribution of derived works under |
| 43 | any later version of the same license. So a work combining a v3 text |
| 44 | and a v4 logo can always be distributed under v4. |
| 45 | |
| 46 | Ulrich |
| 47 | |
| 48 | > [1] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Modifications_and_adaptations_must_be_indicated |
| 49 | > [2] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#.22No_endorsement.22_clause_included |
| 50 | > [3] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/ |
| 51 | > [4] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Automatic_restoration_of_rights_after_termination_if_license_violations_corrected |
| 52 | > [5] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Trademark_and_patent_explicitly_not_licensed |
| 53 | > [6] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-if-i-change-my-mind-about-using-a-cc-license |