| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2016, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Well, proper attribution would help on both fronts, but if we intend |
| 4 |
> the name and logo policy to not actually convey full permission to |
| 5 |
> use our name and logo, we should probably make that more clear. I'd |
| 6 |
> imagine that somebody could just argue that they followed the |
| 7 |
> policy, and it constituted permission from the copyright holder. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The Foundation isn't even the copyright holder of the (vector version |
| 10 |
of the) logo, therefore it cannot grant such permission. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> The fact that we have two different policies in two different places |
| 13 |
> opens the opportunity for letting people argue that they can pick |
| 14 |
> and choose whichever policy suits them better. They'd basically |
| 15 |
> argue that we're dual-licensing it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> In any case, there is no reason not to clarify our intent around the |
| 18 |
> policy around the logo. Clarity only helps when it comes to |
| 19 |
> legalities. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
IMHO, the whole situation regarding copyright and license of the logo |
| 22 |
is less than ideal. The artwork project's wiki page has 5 versions of |
| 23 |
the "g" logo with 4 different copyright holders. The only version |
| 24 |
where the Foundation holds the copyright is distributed under a |
| 25 |
non-free (and quite restrictive) license. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I brought this up some time ago in https://bugs.gentoo.org/293309#c29 |
| 28 |
but there wasn't any answer yet. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Ulrich |
Archives