Re: [gentoo-nfp] Reconsider the license of the "g" logo (item for Trustees meeting)

[Robin H. Johnson]

TL;DR: 
1. Move artwork to CC-BY v4
2. update name/logo page to say 'trademark licensing'

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 03:20:00PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> tl;dr Consider relicensing the blue "g" logo [1] and the red "gentoo"
> logo [2] under CC-BY-SA-2.5 (or 3.0).
This didn't get fully discussed by Trustees in the November meeting due
to running out of time and then been non-quorate, however I would like
to make some points.

I was the trustee that originally proposed the Sampling-Plus license,
during the 2010/07/18 meeting, after a discussion with my contacts in
the Creative Commons organization.

The key goals in the in the original licensing discussion/decision (in
no specific order, they are inter-related):
- protect our trademark rights (so we don't lose the trademark)
- allow authorized commercial use of the mark
- protect against unauthorized commercial use of the mark
- permit the community to still use the marks to identify
  services-for-gentoo
- permit the community to use the marks in artwork freely, even if they
  then sell the artwork.

You'll see that the newer name & logo usage guidelines now cover MUCH of
this. The Sampling-Plus license on the logos was the legal means to
enforce the above goals.

The core parts of Sampling-Plus that mattered in this regard:
- no commercial usage by default (the foundation deliberately grants
  exceptions to commercial vendors).
- no advertising usage (you can't use the Gentoo logo to advertise a
  commercial product or service other than Gentoo-branded merchandise
  itself).
- Allow highly transformative works to still be commercial WITHOUT
  asking permission.
  (eg if I made a great poster using the logo, I should be able to sell
  it and keep the profits).

One of the outcome anticipated was more cool Gentoo-derived artwork
under the transformative provisions. This did not materialize in the
last 6 years, so I think we can handle it differently.

CC licenses before v4 did not explicitly handle the trademark usage
license, and this led to some confusion in early years of Creative
Commons (mostly with users NOT recognizing that they were 2 separate
things). v4 made it explicit.

So where do we go?
0. Educate users that they are taking two licenses (copyright & trademark)
1. Change copyright license on all Gentoo-owned to BY-SA (v4, further below) 
2. EXPLICITLY grant trademark licenses (most of this is done in the
   name/logo page already):
2.1. Non-commercial works: no Foundation permission needed.
2.2. Non-transformative Commercial works with Foundation permission only.
2.3. Highly-Transformative commercial works UNCERTAIN (I'm not decided).
3. Note that the artwork remains available under prior versions of the
   license as well [6]
4. Note that the name/logo guidelines page is the trademark usage licensing.

Why CC v4?
- v4 requires all modifications be noted [1]
- v4 BY-SA (but not BY-NC-SA) is GPLv3 compatible [3]
- v4 auto-reinstatement on violations [4]
- v4 trademark explicitly-not-licensed [5]
- v3+v4 "no endorsement clause" to block advertising [2]

[1] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Modifications_and_adaptations_must_be_indicated
[2] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#.22No_endorsement.22_clause_included
[3] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/
[4] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Automatic_restoration_of_rights_after_termination_if_license_violations_corrected
[5] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Trademark_and_patent_explicitly_not_licensed
[6] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-if-i-change-my-mind-about-using-a-cc-license

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@g.o
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136