[fab] Licensing the Fedora logo
seth vidal
skvidal at linux.duke.edu
Thu Jul 13 18:31:44 UTC 2006
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 14:24 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> To circle back on this:
>
> The fundamental problem with any artwork that contains the Fedora logo is
> this:
>
> THE FEDORA LOGO IS NOT PART OF ANY COMMONS. IT IS A TRADEMARK THAT RED
> HAT INTENDS TO PROTECT.
>
> Legally, I just don't see any middle ground *at all* here. There is no
> current OSS/CC license we could grant that would allow us editorial
> control over the *use* of the mark -- which is the key demand of our legal
> department.
>
> The Fedora Logo is not redistributable without permission, period. Which
> means that the CC NoDerivs license would be unacceptable, and the OPL
> would be unacceptable.
>
> If we can't even allow *free redistribution* of the logo, then how can we
> allow *free modification and redistribution*? The answer is, WE CAN'T.
> To repeat: NONE OF THE CURRENT OSS/CC LICENSES APPLY. PERIOD.
>
> Am I wrong here? Mark? Anyone?
>
> ===
>
> If I'm right, it means that we must come up with an approval process for
> both redistribution and modification of *any* artwork that contains the
> Fedora logo -- a process that has the lowest possible overhead, and which
> makes it *crystal clear* that the logo is NOT OPEN.
>
> (This, by the way, is precisely why I've been advocating so strongly for
> two logos. Re: the "official Debian logo," maybe the reason no one ever
> sees it is that Debian has a very difficult time doing anything in an
> "official" capacity.)
>
> --g
>
Can we take the current 'official' logo and make it the shareable one
and have an official logo that is something else?
I mean if the public logo is an infinity sign maybe we can make the
protected logo a nullset?
-sv
More information about the fedora-advisory-board
mailing list