On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 02:06:50PM -0500, K K wrote: > It'd be great if Theo could make a clear statement on Puffy, the same > as Marshall Kirk McKusick has for the daemon. I had cause to use a > variant of Marshall's beastie for a project which was marginally > within his published guidelines, and had no problem getting > permission. > > > On 3/16/07, Karel Kulhavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Is it true that Puffy is not here because of Theo's concerns about > >his copyrighted Puffy logo? > >http://misc.allbsd.de/Kampagnen/NoBlob/NoBlob-en-Poster.jpg > > Not only is puffy not there, the word "OpenBSD" is also absent, and > Theo has explained exactly what happened. It's not about the blowfish > at all. > > > >I also couldn't use Puffy logo on Ronja because then I wouldn't be able to > >talk > >about OpenBSD negatively if it came out there is some serious problem with > >Ronja and OpenBSD together. > > > >I think Theo should stop being paranoid about his Puffy. Puffy is not > >something > >you steal from a bowl and it disappears. I also have a Ronja logo which is > >under GFDL and noone is stealing it and damaging me. The same for the > >Linux Tux > >I have the feeling. > > Not quite how trademark law works, see http://preview.tinyurl.com/2crjgc
The problem is that the Puffy is an artist work, governed by the copyright / author rights stuff. I asked Theo about still being able to criticize the project freely as I want, and he told me that I can't. What Theo says is consistent with what the website says: "However, it is our intent that anyone be able to use these images to represent OpenBSD in a positive light" http://openbsd.org/art1.html See? "Positive light". Theo explained he needs it to protect his project and that it's required by law that he acts so protective. To me this appears absurd, but Theo has the copyright and he can tell where Puffy can be used and where not. I have ordered a Puffy sticker to stick on my snowboard, that doesn't have any legal hitches, I'll post a picture when I put it there :) > > Specifically, it appears you could legally use Puffy on a Ronja logo It wasn't even on Ronja logo it was just in the list of software used. > "to indicate compatibility", and you could still feel free to "talk > about OpenBSD negatively", even under Canadian trademark law. Trademark is not a problem, the problem lies in the copyright. > > In the "No blob" case, the issue would be that using *any* OpenBSD > mark would "suggest sponsorship or endorsement", puffy or no puffy. > And Theo has made it clear how he feels about endorsing that specific > campaign. So it's not about Puffy copyright, but about Theo not likes the campaign? Well then it makes sense. CL< > > > Jack J. Woehr writes: > > Handling the deadly pufferfish is very dangerous, and best left to > > experts! > > The only legal imports to the US are pre-processed and flash frozen, > with all tetrodotoxin safely removed. > > Fugu is good food. > > > IANAL, YMMV
