Please add an explicit note saying that the graphic of the "g" logo itself are licensed under CC-BY-SA/2.5 on <http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml>. Thanks!
In the motions I just found: 2010/08/15 Use of Gentoo "g" Logo via license CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 Approved (http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/minutes/2010/20100815_trustees_meeting_log.txt) So I guess use of the logo under either CC-BY-SA/2.5 or CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 is allowed. Updating this bug's title accordingly.
The log reads 20:44 <@robbat2|na> dabbott, i'll update the logo usage page for the sampling license Please go ahead :-)
This is irritating me: Jun 19 15:43:24 <NeddySeagoon> CC-BY-SA/2.5 is clearly wrong So it's CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 only? In any case <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/artwork/artwork.xml> will need updating, too.
yes, it needs to be CCPL only. You can commit to fix it on the artwork page.
(In reply to comment #4) > You can commit to fix it on the artwork page. I have applied the fix that you requested. > yes, it needs to be CCPL only. What's the rationale? I imagine that it may get us into trouble: As the name and logo page never said anything on Sampling Plus 1.0, there is derived artwork under CC-BY-SA/2.5 around -- maybe most notably the vector version of the "g" logo [1] -- that allows more than Sampling Plus 1.0 allows as CC-BY-SA does _not_ restrict "perform, display, and distribute copies" to noncommercial purposes. Furthermore, Sampling Plus 1.0 is not widely known and requires much closer reading than the BY-SA-NC-ND building-block-style licenses. To fix this I would rather see a dual-licensing under A) "CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC-SA" or B) "CC-BY-SA/2.5 or CCPL Sampling Plus 1.0" Please take that into consideration. Thanks! [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/artwork/artwork.xml#vector-g
The g logo is our registered trademark, and if licensed under CC-BY-SA, we may suffer (legal) dilution of the brand so that we cannot pursue infringing uses. CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 allows commercial uses where the logo is mixed in with other elements. If there is any dual-licensing, the closest would be: CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 & CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0. I believe this best represents both the commercial & non-commercial sections of the Name & Logo guideline page. The other question is: Does licensing the logo under any CC license where, in commercial use, it is possible for the logo to the main or sole element, diminish our brand protection? This is what Neddy was concerned about.
(In reply to comment #6) > The g logo is our registered trademark, and if licensed under CC-BY-SA, we may > suffer (legal) dilution of the brand so that we cannot pursue infringing uses. > CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0 allows commercial uses where the logo is mixed in with > other elements. I thought our (trustes + me) understanding was that trademark law works in the background and still applies to artwork licensed under CC-BY-SA or GPL. > If there is any dual-licensing, the closest would be: > CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 & CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0. That makes derivates under CC-BY-SA illegal. Not a wise move in my eyes. Especially with a logo usage page that spoke of CC-BY-SA for years exclusively. > I believe this best represents both the commercial & non-commercial sections of > the Name & Logo guideline page. > > The other question is: Does licensing the logo under any CC license where, in > commercial use, it is possible for the logo to the main or sole element, > diminish our brand protection? This is what Neddy was concerned about. This sounds like the question of level of copyright and trademarks (same level or different level again, see above.
If it is any help Debian simply provides a single policy regarding use of their logo, and it does not distinguish between copyright and trademark licensing. They do not offer it under a CC license. Fedora does not either - if anything their license is much more restrictive. Now, Debian does offer separate logos for community use vs official use, and makes allowance for "powered by Debian" and such. We could certainly provide for certain similar blanket uses in Gentoo and not really run afoul of trademark law. I also noted that the Fedora page displaying the logo policy just has their generic CC license. No doubt this is intended to refer to the webpage content in general, and not the logo specifically. No idea whether this creates legal issues but I suspect their lawyers are better-paid.
I have now updated the license declaration of gentoo3.blend on http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/artwork/artwork.xml#rendering-gentoo3 to CCPL-Sampling-Plus-1.0, too. Didn't think of that one before. Updating title to better reflect open todos.
Ping, any news? (see bug title)
I'd rather keep the copyright license and the trademark license separate, because I fear that there would be confusion otherwise. The "Django Trademark License Agreement", which is the base for our text, doesn't say anything about their copyright license either. Neither does https://gentoo-ev.org/downloads/Nutzungsbestimmungen.pdf. What we could do is add a short subsection under "Frequently asked questions", i.e. not part of the trademark license itself. For example (suggestions for better wording are welcome): What is the copyright license of the logo's graphics? The official version of the "g" logo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 4.0 License <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/>. See the Gentoo Artwork project <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Artwork/Artwork#Variations_of_the_.22g.22_logo> for details.
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #11) > I'd rather keep the copyright license and the trademark license separate, > because I fear that there would be confusion otherwise. The "Django > Trademark License Agreement", which is the base for our text, doesn't say > anything about their copyright license either. Neither does > https://gentoo-ev.org/downloads/Nutzungsbestimmungen.pdf. > > What we could do is add a short subsection under "Frequently asked > questions", i.e. not part of the trademark license itself. For example > (suggestions for better wording are welcome): > > What is the copyright license of the logo's graphics? > > The official version of the "g" logo is licensed under the Creative Commons > Attribution/Share-Alike 4.0 License > <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/>. See the Gentoo Artwork > project > <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Artwork/Artwork#Variations_of_the_.22g. > 22_logo> for details. LGTM
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #11) > I'd rather keep the copyright license and the trademark license separate, > because I fear that there would be confusion otherwise. The "Django > Trademark License Agreement", which is the base for our text, doesn't say > anything about their copyright license either. Neither does > https://gentoo-ev.org/downloads/Nutzungsbestimmungen.pdf. > > What we could do is add a short subsection under "Frequently asked > questions", i.e. not part of the trademark license itself. For example > (suggestions for better wording are welcome): > > What is the copyright license of the logo's graphics? > > The official version of the "g" logo is licensed under the Creative Commons > Attribution/Share-Alike 4.0 License > <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/>. See the Gentoo Artwork > project > <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Artwork/Artwork#Variations_of_the_.22g. > 22_logo> for details. LGTM too
Created attachment 872095 [details, diff] name-logo-guidelines: Add FAQ section about the logo's license Trustees, please vote on attached patch.
Created attachment 872096 [details, diff] gentoo-logo: State license information more accurately Closely related, this patch states the license information of the logo more accurately: - vector version is licensed CC=BY-SA-2.5 - "official" blender version is licensed CC-BY-SA-4.0 (I don't think we need any vote on this one.)
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #14) > Created attachment 872095 [details, diff] [details, diff] > name-logo-guidelines: Add FAQ section about the logo's license > > Trustees, please vote on attached patch. I vote yes.
I vote yes
1. aye as written 2. It would be very nice to gain exclusive ownership (not moral copyright) over the vector version, so we could update the license, and use it for the foundation's purposes beyond CC in future [I don't want to limit future Foundation/Umbrella usage].
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #14) > Created attachment 872095 [details, diff] [details, diff] > name-logo-guidelines: Add FAQ section about the logo's license Accepted unanimously with 5 yes / 0 no / 0 abstentions.
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/sites/www.git/commit/?id=be0e08fa4470fdc255143975ddf65a78483fe57d commit be0e08fa4470fdc255143975ddf65a78483fe57d Author: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2023-10-03 09:45:23 +0000 Commit: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2023-10-07 13:27:49 +0000 name-logo-guidelines: Add FAQ section about the logo's license Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/369185 Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> inside-gentoo/foundation/name-logo-guidelines.md | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
