Re: Logo trademark license vs. copyright license On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:41:45 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:

> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Anyway, how do you propose to keep the current role distinction
> > between the two logos?
> 
> TINLA but I don't think that is necessary. Since the license
> is "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't confuse people
> with us", you simply argue differently when you think there
> is confusion.
> 
> For the open use logo, you would say there is confusion only
> when people try to indicate endorsement by Debian.
> 
> For the official use logo you would say there is confusion
> also when people pretend whatever they have is Official Debian.
> 
> Yes, these are vague criteria but that is to a certain extent
> inherent in trademark law. You don't know what people will do
> and how that can affect your trademark.

Wait, the Debian Project should clarify the intended meanings of the two
different logos, in order to inform users upfront about which uses will
be considered OK, and which will be deemed to be abuses...
I think the best place to makes things clear is the trademark notice.
That's why the whole [Z] thing was present in Nathanael's original
proposal, I think.

> 
> > > 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?
> 
> I don't know what you mean by that.

I simply mean "the grant of permission won't become more restrictive".

> 
> The wording with X and Z seems to suggest that you mean that
> X can only be a trademark for Z ("representing Z"). So there
> can only be confusion when people use X representing Z, right?

I'm not sure I get what you mean.
Let's quote the current proposed wording one more time:

| The sign [X] (hereafter "the Mark") is a trademark, rights to which
| are held by [Y] (hereafter "the Mark Holder"), representing [Z].

AFAIUI, this means that the sign [X] is a trademark that means or refers
to [Z].
The trademark license should forbid people to use [X] to mean or refer
to something that is *not* [Z].

For instance:

[X] = Debian Open Use Logo
[Z] = Debian Project and Debian distributions
Nobody is allowed to use [X] (or a confusingly similar sign) to refer to
IBM, or to Slackware, or to Microsoft, or to MacOS X, ...

[X] = Debian Official Use Logo
[Z] = endorsement by the Debian Project
Nobody is allowed to use [X] (or a confusingly similar sign) for stuff
that is not officially endorsed by the Debian Project (e.g.: unofficial
Debian builds, random Debian derivatives, my web site, ...)

> 
> Now suppose three years from now X also becomes known to
> represent T. With your license, can you still argue that
> X is being misused when people use it to represent T, falsely
> pretending affiliation with X? I'm not sure, because the license
> says that X only represents Z.

Since the trademark license says that [X] represents [Z], I would say
that [X] is being misused whenever it's used to represent [T], where
[T] != [Z].

Or am I using too much mathematical logic, and too little legal
expertise?   ;-)

> 
> > I'd rather avoid the latter, even at the cost of risking the former!
> 
> I understand that. It's difficult to allow other people to do
> things with your trademark, because it is easy to permit too much
> and that can kill your trademark. It's not like copyright where
> a too-liberal license means someone can use it in a way you don't
> like; there you still have your free original. 

That's why whenever we talk about trademarks on debian-legal some heavy
headscratching begins!  ;-)


-- 
 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
