On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 06:41:49AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Since there's no way of making the logo free without losing control over > >the mark, > > FYI, we believe you are wrong about this. > > Quoting Eric Dorland: > > split the license on > > the logo to have a DSFG-free copyright license and the same, > > restrictive trademark license. > > <...> There appears > to be no legal obstacle to this route (if you have legal advice to the > contrary, > please share with debian-legal). It appears that aggressive enforcement of > trademarks > for their intended purpose, namely clearly identifying the origin and > identity of a > product, is entirely DFSG-compatible (note the DFSG clause which specifies > that name > change requirements are OK). Restrictions which go beyond the original > function of > trademarks are generally not DFSG-free, but are also unnecessary for > trademark defense. > > This is just an FYI matter, as it is really quite off the main topic of the > bug.
Is it, though? It seems to me this is exactly the topic of the bug. All of Mozilla Corporation's stated objections to a DFSG-free logo would appear to be answered by Nathanael's statement. If they can, in fact, retain control over their mark through trademark laws, and maintain the expectation of quality associated with it, and still make the logo available under a free (copyright) license, is there a separate reason for declining to do so? If Mozilla Corp. releases the logos under a free license and we reach an understanding about which patches we're going to put into the branded firefox package, that fixes this bug, right? -- paul (still hoping)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
