Hallo

Der folgende Mail-Austausch entsprang einer Diskussion, die ich mit [[en:User:CaladSigilon]] in #copyleft hatte. Ich dachte, das könnte euch interessieren, auch in Hinblick auf undere eigenen Logos.

Gruss, Duesentrieb

========================================================================================= Return-Path: www-data@gnu.org Received: from rt.gnu.org ([199.232.76.167]) by tacticalbusinesspartners.com for sysadmin@tacticalbusinesspartners.com; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 14:04:33 -0800 Received: from www-data by rt.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1F6DqL-0000lD-De; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:24:17 -0500 Subject: [gnu.org #265563] Logos From: "Brett Smith via RT" licensing@fsf.org Reply-To: licensing@fsf.org In-Reply-To: rt-265563@gnu.org Message-ID: rt-3.0.11-265563-908289.4.75636058829771@rt.gnu.org Precedence: bulk X-RT-Loop-Prevention: gnu.org RT-Ticket: gnu.org #265563 Managed-by: RT 3.0.11 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/) RT-Originator: brett@gnu.org To: sysadmin@tacticalbusinesspartners.com Cc: gnu@gnu.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8 Sender: www-data www-data@gnu.org Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:24:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

...

[sysadmin@tacticalbusinesspartners.com - Tue Jan 10 18:56:23 2006]:

I apologize if this message has reached the wrong place, but I did not know where else to send it. I am a frequenter of ##copyleft on Freenode, a discussion and support channel for copylefts. Recently, we had a discussion (that Wikipedia has apparently been having itself, according to a channel member) on whether when you release logos when you include them in the source packaging. For example, User Adam writes a program called Foo. He releases Foo under the latest GPL, and included in the GUI, in the upper right hand corner, is the logo that Adam created. Is the logo released for all to use under the rights and restrictions of the GPL, or would Adam have to release it separately?

Dear Harlan,

It's hard to answer this question for certain. We believe that users would have the right to use, share, modify, and redistribute the logo under the terms of the GNU GPL, just as with the rest of the software, assuming there is not a trademark on the image. However, the case for this admittedly is not as strong as it is for more traditional software components, like code or straight data files.

If there is a trademark on the image, it would still technically be licensed under the GPL, but with no real legal impact -- users would not be able to share or modify it, per section 7.

If he wished, Adam could clarify the situation by explicitly stating that the GPL applies to the logo as well, or else licensing it separately.

...

What if Adam wanted to release program Foo, but didn't want anyone else to use his logo for any other of their products? What would he do then?

A separate license for the logo, and preferably a note in the program's license notice about this, should suffice in this case.

I hope this helps; if you have further questions, feel free to contact us. Please note that this is not legal advice; if you need legal advice, please contact a lawyer.

Best regards,

-- Brett Smith Free Software Foundation Licensing Team