Hoi,
It is funny but I agree with Debian here.. I said it before, it is not about
copyright and exactly for this reason there should be a separate license
that acknowledges the exception that exist because of trademarks.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 8/25/07, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
Brian wrote:
I think Erik really got to the heart of the
issue. If this _were_ an
issue,
it boils down to the fact that you need to have
legal protection of
certain
digital media that is somewhat stricter than your
philosophy usually
permits, and finding a way to tackle that problem in all open source
projects is the place to do this, perhaps with a new type of license.
Well, the way the Debian project solved this is by [gasp!] just freely
licensing their logo, as far as copyright goes, but retaining a
trademark that they can use to prohibit misleading uses.
(They do also have a "this logo is for official Debian use only" logo,
but it's not the common one that is usually associated with the project.)
See:
http://www.debian.org/logos/
IMO this is a much better way of handling it without inviting obvious
discussions about consistency.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l