Ok, now you got me started ...
I would not consider trademark guidelines as enforceable against the user of a trademark. You have no idea whether a user ever saw them and probably there is no mechanism for obtaining the assent of the person. (OTOH, they are enforceable against the trademark owner under equitable principles like estoppel.)
So if the copyright license says "modify, share!!", you may not be able to undo that by saying in the trademark guidelines, "oh, we didn't really mean that thing we said about 'modify, share!!' in the copyright license."
Will you be able to say "well, we're talking about two different things here, they can modify and share the copyright, but trademark is a whole different matter and just because they can copy and share the copyright doesn't mean they get to create confusion!!" Yes, you can argue that. Will it work? Maybe. Do I think that it's going to work 100% of the time? Nope. (Reflect for a moment on patent licenses granted implicitly because of the copyright grant.) But what will work 100% of the time is NOT granting a "modify, share!!" copyright license to start.
Pam
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:44 PM Tom Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
