| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 02:19:52PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Well, proper attribution would help on both fronts, but if we intend |
| 3 |
> > the name and logo policy to not actually convey full permission to |
| 4 |
> > use our name and logo, we should probably make that more clear. I'd |
| 5 |
> > imagine that somebody could just argue that they followed the |
| 6 |
> > policy, and it constituted permission from the copyright holder. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The Foundation isn't even the copyright holder of the (vector version |
| 9 |
> of the) logo, therefore it cannot grant such permission. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I don't think this is correct. The Gentoo Foundation does have copyright |
| 12 |
ownership over the logo, see |
| 13 |
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78323020&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
We try to properly document when the logo can be used (cfr |
| 16 |
https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/foundation/name-logo-guidelines.html#service-identification |
| 17 |
) although we make no claims about which sources can be used. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
IF the use of the logo is according to the trademark guidelines, then we |
| 20 |
need to look at the source of the logo (be it the vectorized one, or another |
| 21 |
format) as that one might have additional constraints attached to it. But |
| 22 |
the primary (legality of use) of the logo is, imo, guided through the |
| 23 |
Gentoo Name and Logo Usage Guidelines document as referenced above. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Wkr, |
| 26 |
Sven Vermeulen |
Archives