My point is that we really need this. AFAICT you are worried about *possible* violations, not any comitted currently by my (libosinfo and Boxes) patches. If that is so, I am willing to take the risk unless you have a better solution in mind? BTW I already checked that installer ISOs dont always provide a logo that we could use. :( P.S So sorry for the top-posting but my android phone mandates it. <div class="gmail_quote">15.2.2012 16.42 "Daniel P. Berrange" <<a href="mailto:berrange@redhat.com">berrange@redhat.com</a>> kirjoitti: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Daniel P. Berrange > <<a href="mailto:berrange@redhat.com">berrange@redhat.com</a>> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:02:28AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) > >> <<a href="mailto:zeeshanak@gnome.org">zeeshanak@gnome.org</a>> wrote: > >> > From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <<a href="mailto:zeeshanak@gnome.org">zeeshanak@gnome.org</a>> > >> > >> This obsoletes the previous "Provide logo URLs for Fedora and Ubuntu" > >> patch from me. If for some reason you are not convinced with the > >> important of these patches, see this Boxes screenshot :) > >> > >> <a href="http://static.fi/~zeenix/tmp/boxes+win-fedora-ubuntu-iso-logos.png" target="_blank">http://static.fi/~zeenix/tmp/boxes+win-fedora-ubuntu-iso-logos.png</a> > > > > While the motivation to display logos is fine, after reviewing the Fedora > > legal guidance on use of logos I think I'll have to NACK this patch for > > now. This mail contains the details: > > > > <a href="https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-April/001615.html" target="_blank">https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-April/001615.html</a> > > > >> 1. Distribution of the icons containing the logo files is not connected > >> to whether the use is infringement or not (which makes sense, we don't > >> get a free pass on using a trademarked logo improperly just because we > >> didn't distribute it). This doesn't mean that we can distribute icons > >> containing trademarks either, just that the two items aren't connected. > > > > Based on this point, the trademark issue is not focused around whether we > > have distributed the logo, but rather whether/how we have *used* it. So > > even if we download the logo, rather than bundle it, we still have to > > abide by the same trademark usage rules > > But we are not even using them, only providing a link to them. I don't > see anything in that mail about linking. I'm thinking of the broader combined work, of Boxes combined with libosinfo, since the source code level split is irrelevant to the question of trademark compliance. > >> 2. With that said, the fact that the icon is _always_ coming from the > >> VM, thus minimizing the chance of a VM being labeled with the wrong > >> trademarked logo, is a good thing, and in fact, necessary. > > > > Since we are proposing to download logos from a 3rd party site, there > > would be a non-negigable chance of us mis-labelling a VM with the wrong > > trademarked logo. So we would fall foul of this point. > > Not really an issue for libosinfo but the apps using those logos. What > we can do is to ensure that the links we are providing match the > product's name. I don't see why we can't do that. > > >> 3. Red Hat Legal explains that the rule of thumb is this: > >> - If the wordmark (e.g. "Fedora") is sufficient to describe the item, > >> then the logo use is not necessary, and thus, not permitted. > > > > Since your screenshot shows that the 'wordmark' is indeed present & > > sufficient, we would fall foul of this point too. > > That screenshot is of Boxes, which is downloading, caching and showing > the logos (not very different from what a web browser does) and its > Boxes that will get in trouble for any possible trademark violations, > not libosinfo AFAICT. The difference I see with the web browser is that the usage context of the logo. The author of the web page is the one determing that the logo should be displayed. If you want to compare what we're attempting in libosinfo/Boxes, with a web browser, then the closest comparison would be "favicons" which a browser displays in the toolbar. In this case the favicon that is displayed is the one specified by the web page itself. If the browser itself attempted to automatically guess a favicon logo for a web page, then it'd be a fair comparison. > In Boxes at least, we really really want to show the logos for each > OS, otherwise the UI looks totally ugly and unimpressive. I'm open to > suggestion on how to achieve this goal in ways that would satisfy your > concerns but we really need to do this. If linking is considered a > 'use' of the logo, I guess we'll have to bite the bullet and handle > this entirely in Boxes. Putting it all in Boxes doesn't solve anything. You'd just choosing to ignore the question by moving it into Boxes code where I won't be objecting. That doesn't make it any more acceptable to Fedora AFAICT Regards, Daniel -- |: <a href="http://berrange.com" target="_blank">http://berrange.com</a> -o- <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/</a> :| |: <a href="http://libvirt.org" target="_blank">http://libvirt.org</a> -o- <a href="http://virt-manager.org" target="_blank">http://virt-manager.org</a> :| |: <a href="http://autobuild.org" target="_blank">http://autobuild.org</a> -o- <a href="http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/" target="_blank">http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/</a> :| |: <a href="http://entangle-photo.org" target="_blank">http://entangle-photo.org</a> -o- <a href="http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc" target="_blank">http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc</a> :| </blockquote></div>