| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> The Foundation isn't even the copyright holder of the (vector version |
| 4 |
> of the) logo, therefore it cannot grant such permission. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Well, considering that the webpage makes no mention of this, how would |
| 8 |
anybody be expected to know this? It is pretty odd that any |
| 9 |
organization wouldn't hold the copyright to its own logo, so you |
| 10 |
wouldn't expect a random person to anticipate this. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
And it does hold copyright on one version of the logo. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> IMHO, the whole situation regarding copyright and license of the logo |
| 16 |
> is less than ideal. The artwork project's wiki page has 5 versions of |
| 17 |
> the "g" logo with 4 different copyright holders. The only version |
| 18 |
> where the Foundation holds the copyright is distributed under a |
| 19 |
> non-free (and quite restrictive) license. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I brought this up some time ago in https://bugs.gentoo.org/293309#c29 |
| 22 |
> but there wasn't any answer yet. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
No argument there. How did we actually end up in this situation? Who |
| 25 |
owned the original Gentoo logo? I believe drobbins originally |
| 26 |
anticipated being able to commercialize Gentoo in some way, so I have |
| 27 |
to think that he'd have given this some thought (unless it had a |
| 28 |
different logo back then). I doubt he'd want a trademark on a logo he |
| 29 |
didn't even own. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Granted, we ended up in a similar situation with Larry the Cow. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives