Hmmmm. I wonder what the SPDX answer is for "copyright license on a logo that really should be trademark guidelines"...
Tom
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:41 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
