On 14. 05. 20 18:37, Tom Callaway wrote:
In this case, this is a logo, which is also a trademark (though, not a
registered one as far as I can see).
Since the software does not require the logo to be present (or to be more
specific, the software _license_ does not require this), and there are no
restrictions on distribution (only modification), it seems to me that this logo
presents no real risk or burden to our users or downstream. Additionally, it is
noteworthy that the Fedora logos (and other FOSS logos such as the Firefox and
Chromium logo) are part of Fedora with similar restrictions on modifying them.
Ideally, these restrictions would be separated from the copyright licensing (as
they would be more applicable as trademark use guidelines), but the intent is clear.
Assuming that Richard Fontana agrees, I would be inclined to clarify our stance
on permissible content (as found here:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:What_Can_Be_Packaged) to
call out the following as another example of permissible content:
* Logos/trademarks are permissible, as long as all of the following conditions
are met:
A. The logo/trademark files are distributed by the owner (or with the clear
and explicit permission of the owner)
B. The logo/trademark files are distributable by third-parties.
C. The logo/trademark files have a direct relationship to software under an
acceptable license that is present in Fedora (or about to be added at the same time)
D. Any existing trademark guidelines/restrictions/rules on the
logos/trademarks do not prevent Fedora (or anyone) from fully exercising the
rights given them in the licensing on the associated software.
Permission to modify is not required for logos/trademarks, but their use must
NOT be contingent upon restrictions that would conflict with the license terms
of the associated software. Two examples:
1. The associated software may require the removal or replacement of the
logos/trademarks if the software is modified. Removing/replacing the logos does
not prevent Fedora (or anyone) from fully exercising the rights given to them in
the FOSS software license. In this case, the software and the logos would be
permissible, but the logos may have to be removed/replaced if Fedora (or anyone
downstream) makes modifications to the software. Packagers in such a situation
should be especially careful.
2. The software license cannot require the logos/trademarks to be used in the
software and simultaneously have trademark guidelines that only permit use on
unmodified versions of the software. In this scenario, neither the logos nor the
software would be permissible in Fedora.
If you're not sure if a logo/trademark is acceptable for inclusion, feel free to
bring the specific situation to the attention of Fedora Legal for review.
****
Under these criteria, the lua logo would be acceptable (as would the existing
Firefox/Chromium logos).
Thoughts?
This is exactly the rule I assumed we already had but couldn't find. Thanks.
BTW If this goes fine, what would I put in License? GPLv2 and Lua Logo?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
