On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/17/2010 03:09 PM, inode0 wrote: >> Misappropriation suggests to me it wasn't freely licensed, but was >> rather freely available. That isn't the same thing and could happen to >> us right now as well although we make getting the source slightly more >> of a bother. > > The problem is not that they used it. The problem is that with a freely > licensed logo we would be unable to /stop/ them from using it using > legal means. With a proper license on the usage we have legal resources > to compel them to stop using the logo. The entire point of a free license is *allow* others to use it. Perhaps use of the word logo here is the problem because we have a fairly ingrained natural instinct to want to protect that. This image is really just a secondary image, different from all our marks, that is associated with the project and free for others to use in cases like the one that began this thread where a free image is necessary. Could it too be abused in unpleasant ways? Yes. Could our distribution be abused in unpleasant ways? Yes. With freedom comes risk. John _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
