[virt-tools-list] [libosinfo] Provide logo URLs for Fedora, Ubuntu & Windows

Wed Feb 15 14:59:51 UTC 2012

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.
15.2.2012 16.42 "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange at redhat.com> kirjoitti:

> 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
> > <berrange at redhat.com> 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)
> > >> <zeeshanak at gnome.org> wrote:
> > >> > From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak at gnome.org>
> > >>
> > >> 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 :)
> > >>
> > >> http://static.fi/~zeenix/tmp/boxes+win-fedora-ubuntu-iso-logos.png
> > >
> > > 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:
> > >
> > >
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-April/001615.html
> > >
> > >> 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
> --
> |: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/:|
> |: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org:|
> |: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/:|
> |: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc:|
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/virt-tools-list/attachments/20120215/284eee3e/attachment.htm>