Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:09:11 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:

> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:41:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > > Why would you do that?
> > 
> > Because there can be more than one logo with different meanings.
> > As you know, the Debian Project has currently two logos[1]:
> 
> I understand that. But I think it is sufficient if you uniquely
> describe the logos involved. There is no need to talk about
> endorsement.
> 
> "The sign X, registered as a trademark under number $NUM in
> $REGION,..."

I don't know if Debian logos are actually *registered* marks.
Possibly, they are just unregistered trademarks...
Does anybody know for sure?

Anyway, how do you propose to keep the current role distinction between
the two logos?

> 
> > > That can only be used against you.
> > 
> > How so?
> 
> When you describe what the mark covers, you also describe what
> the mark does not cover. If three years later your mark has
> expanded to cover new things, this license will limit you.

That is to say: restrictions won't expand?
It seems to be a feature, rather than a bug, from a Free Software
perspective...
Or am I misreading you?

> 
> I'm just trying to ensure you don't run into problems later on.

What kind of problems?
License could become a little too permissive?
License could become a little too restrictive?

I'd rather avoid the latter, even at the cost of risking the former!


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
