I run a free software event (www.southeastlinuxfest.org). I was curious as to the licensing of various distros' marks, as I was interested in perhaps cobbling together a sticker sheet including the logos for various distros for a future event. I was rather troubled that Gentoo, and as far as I've found so far at least only Gentoo, *requires* adoption of the Gentoo CoC or some similar CoC as a condition of using the mark. By all means, Gentoo can and should make sure that nobody is using the mark in ill will. But demanding adherence to a CoC sounds pretty extreme. And should Gentoo even be in the business of dictating a CoC to other events/projects just to be able to make passing reference to Gentoo in a formal manner by using the mark? If the answer to that is yes, how on Earth do you square that ideological circle while distributing (and probably even producing) code licensed under MIT and similar licenses? And the parts on CoC use for use in the mark are written so thinly, so vaguely, as to be potentially ann iron fist of enforcement or meaningless entirely. I'm urging a rethink here. Reproducible: Always
I understand that this is required/enforced by the Foundation, so unrestricting and reassigning.
In your case, you're proposing a run of sticker logos, which comes under the Merchandise section of the name/logo guildlines: https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/foundation/name-logo-guidelines.html#merchandise This section does not interact with the CoC in any way. Your event is branded as SELF/SouthEast-LinuxFest. Where do you see anything that says you must adopt the CoC if you want to use the trademark? The only interaction between the CoC & name them that I'm aware of off the top of my head is the Groups & Events section of the name/logo guidelines: https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/foundation/name-logo-guidelines.html#groups-and-events To summarize: IF 1) You are running a group or event AND 2) You want to put "Gentoo" into the NAME of that group or event. THEN A) The group/event must adhere to the Gentoo CoC AND B) The group must ALSO have a specific Code of Conduct governing the behavior of participants. ENDIF. Rationale for the above: An event/group branding itself as Gentoo-related should follow the Gentoo CoC because it reflects on the Gentoo name. If you were calling your event "SouthEastGentooFest", then it should comply with the Gentoo requirements (and the Gentoo Foundation would entertain a proposal for some funds for example). P.S. Both of these parts of the Name/Logo guidelines came from the Django Trademark License Agreement, https://www.djangoproject.com/trademarks/, as noted by the attribution in the bottom of the guidelines: https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/foundation/name-logo-guidelines.html#what-is-this-license-based-on
Correct, based on the exact reading, I would have to do a one-off request to trustees@ ... which I still have gripes about but that would be another bug report. If I just wanted to, say for instance, hold a Gentoo Installfest at my local LUG and CALL it a Gentoo Installfest, so that newbies could learn command line utilities and Linux setup tools applicable across ALL distros (how I learned!), I would have to then install the Gentoo CoC just to run a Gentoo Installfest at my LUG. That seems RIDICULOUS. To be clear, I still have gripes for the SouthEast LinuxFest use case which I wish to address separately as well, but one at time here, it is a bug tracker. The Linux trademark for Tux is much more aggressively free and open in how it is licensed and used. I encourage the Gentoo Foundation to copy Torvalds' lead. https://www.linuxmark.org
(In reply to georgia_tech_swagger from comment #3) > > If I just wanted to, say for instance, hold a Gentoo Installfest at my local > LUG and CALL it a Gentoo Installfest, so that newbies could learn command > line utilities and Linux setup tools applicable across ALL distros (how I > learned!), I would have to then install the Gentoo CoC just to run a Gentoo > Installfest at my LUG. That seems RIDICULOUS. > Presumably the larger event already has a code of conduct that is similar in nature, in which case your participants are already complying. Also, I imagine that as long as the person running the installfest is familiar with the CoC and generally enforcing it I don't see why individuals would need to access it. And of course you could probably just link it from the agenda/etc. Do we really want newbies being exposed to Gentoo for the first time in a setting which doesn't conform to the CoC? Do you anticipate that the participants in such an event would be courteous while refraining from flaming/trolling? I'd think that an event that attracts newcomers would be the sort where you'd most want a CoC. Nothing in the CoC requires prior permission or oaths of fealty/etc. It basically boils down to what is in most places considered socially acceptable behavior. If that is a problem, do we really want the Gentoo name associated with it?
> Presumably the larger event already has a code of conduct that is similar in > nature, in which case your participants are already complying. > > Do we really want newbies being exposed to Gentoo for the first time in a > setting which doesn't conform to the CoC? Do you anticipate that the > participants in such an event would be courteous while refraining from > flaming/trolling? I'd think that an event that attracts newcomers would be > the sort where you'd most want a CoC. SELF uses more or less Red Hat's own CoC for their events. Good enough for a multi-billion dollar publicly traded company ... good enough for a free to attend event. Quite literally the CoC is: "SELF expects everyone to conduct themselves professionally and respectfully. If you need assistance relating to conduct of another person at the event, please contact SELF organizers." So please don't ass-u-me on the CoC. Not all CoC's are created equally. Some are actually quite subtly pernicious and political in nature. I wish to avoid Gentoo building a power structure around a CoC. Even if everybody on the Gentoo Foundation is a transcendental saint, it's a power that can be recklessly wielded by some future leaders. Gentoo is a free software project. It shouldn't be dictating behavior to other people outside the project even if for purely altruistic reasons (which is usually not the case). It's not the mission. It's beyond your scope. It serves no purpose other than control which is the exact OPPOSITE of what Gentoo's mission is (or should be, IMHO), whether stated as such or not: to empower the individual through almost limitless choice with their software. You want a system to vet events using the mark? Fine! Great! Absolutely! Do exactly what the Linux Foundation does. But also DON'T DO what the Linux Foundation DOESN'T DO: Dictate a CoC and use case. I get the current policy. I really do. I just think it's lazy, antithetical to the values of open source software (empowering the end user), and potentially dangerous should Gentoo be lead by non-saintly people in the future. Gentoo can do better. That's why the bug is filed under enhancement and not blocker. ;)
Almost forgot ... in the use case of the LUG, my local LUG is more or less managed by chaos. People step up and lead ... and then as they fade somebody else steps up. It has no legal existence. It has no formal policies. It's just a bunch of geeks freely associating, educating, socializing, and having fun. You really wanna tell my local LUG to be able to lawfully use "Gentoo Installfest" for an event we have to stop being an amorphous blob and start codifying formal policies just to make Gentoo sufficiently happy that a bunch of guys installing Gentoo at a startup incubator isn't an existential threat to the mark? COME ON. I can already hear half the room walking out saying "well that killed off any fun that was in us teaching newbies through Gentoo."
(In reply to georgia_tech_swagger from comment #5) > It shouldn't be dictating behavior to other people > outside the project even if for purely altruistic reasons (which is usually > not the case). It doesn't dictate what anybody ought to do unless they want to be considered a part of Gentoo by using our name. (In reply to georgia_tech_swagger from comment #6) > You really wanna tell my local LUG to be able > to lawfully use "Gentoo Installfest" for an event we have to stop being an > amorphous blob and start codifying formal policies just to make Gentoo > sufficiently happy that a bunch of guys installing Gentoo at a startup > incubator isn't an existential threat to the mark? You'll have to point out the part of the trademark policy that mandates some kind of organizational structure, and codifying formal policies. It just says that if you want to call yourself part of Gentoo then you need to follow the CoC, which we've helpfully already written. If you aren't reported for violating it, then you really have nothing to be concerned about. And really if it upsets you that much then just don't stick "Gentoo" in the event title and you can do whatever you want. The policy doesn't apply if you simply use Gentoo - only if you run an event/etc under our name. If you call it a "Linux installfest" and as part of it you install Gentoo I don't really see how the policy applies. I can't really speak for what Red Hat or anybody else does when they run a conference, but I doubt that you could do much that actually violates the Gentoo code of conduct and not run into trouble there. To some degree they can probably get by with a more vague wording because at anything they actually run they probably just have trained security who can apply the unadvertised rules and politely ask people to leave. It isn't like they have to be able to point to a declared rule to do so.
(In reply to Richard Freeman from comment #7) > > It doesn't dictate what anybody ought to do unless they want to be > considered a part of Gentoo by using our name. > So then we agree it dictates terms. Unless you consider "Installfest of source based distribution which uses software management similar to BSD" to be practical let alone desirable. I get defending the mark. But you can do that without dictating terms. The Linux Foundation has no problem doing this. Why is it a problem for the Gentoo Foundation to do the same? If you've got an argument for how the Linux Foundation's approach is flawed, let's hear it. I understand fully the motivations for Gentoo doing what it has done. You seem to be interested in defending the existing position. I'm not attacking the existing position per se. I'm saying a better policy could be crafted. An example to point to of something objectively better at defending the mark while maximizing freedom and choice for everybody involved is the Linux Foundation. Again, if you have an argument against how the Linux Foundation defends Tux ... let's hear it. If you have an argument for how the Linux Foundation's method is less freedom oriented or empowering to the end user let's hear it. If the Linux Foundation's policy is clearly better, then why isn't Gentoo friendly to moving in that directly? We should be allies here striving for a better good instead of bickering over the existing policy IMHO. > > You'll have to point out the part of the trademark policy that mandates some > kind of organizational structure, and codifying formal policies. It just > says that if you want to call yourself part of Gentoo then you need to > follow the CoC, which we've helpfully already written. > My LUG (UCLUG if you're curious) is largely organization through no organization. You're saying if we have a Gentoo Installfest, we must first agree to the Gentoo CoC. That means a top down mandate. And where does the authority come from to do that in a largely ad-hoc and organization-less group? The answer is of course from the people. Consent from the governed. So just dictating that policy forces UCLUG to more formally organize. And that's work, time, and effort spent doing things utterly unrelated to free software. And that kills off all the fun and joy and thus most of the manpower. > > If you aren't reported for violating it, then you really have nothing to be > concerned about. > I wish I could communicate to you how terrifying I find this mindset. It is VERY scary indeed. Having a set of rules with ambiguous enforcement is a recipe for chaos. And if you don't believe me, I can show you some SCOTUS cases where police arrested people they didn't like under previously unenforced sodomy laws. What did these people do that was so terrible in the eyes of these admittedly bad cops? They were gay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas Which is why I say even if the Gentoo Foundation is full of transcendental saints you should run screaming away from that mindset. Because eventually somebody might wield that power who is unsavory. > > And really if it upsets you that much then just don't stick "Gentoo" in the > event title and you can do whatever you want. The policy doesn't apply if > you simply use Gentoo - only if you run an event/etc under our name. If you > call it a "Linux installfest" and as part of it you install Gentoo I don't > really see how the policy applies. > Just because I can find a way around the policy easily doesn't make it an acceptable policy. If anything, it's even more damning of the policy in question. This is where the laziness I mentioned previously starts to creep in. > > I can't really speak for what Red Hat or anybody else does when they run a > conference, but I doubt that you could do much that actually violates the > Gentoo code of conduct and not run into trouble there. To some degree they > can probably get by with a more vague wording because at anything they > actually run they probably just have trained security who can apply the > unadvertised rules and politely ask people to leave. It isn't like they > have to be able to point to a declared rule to do so. > Now you're attacking the same policy too. So why aren't we allies to fix this thing again?
/me puts his foundation president hat on You follow the name/logo usage guidelines if using our name or logo (artwork). https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/foundation/name-logo-guidelines.html Meaning, if you call an event 'Gentoo Linux InstallFest' the you need to follow the guidelines. The following is taken from our guidelines Groups and events You may incorporate the Gentoo name into the name of any group or event, provided that: The purpose of the group or event is to educate, provide networking opportunities, or provide a social outlet for Gentoo users; The name of the group or event is formed by combining the name “Gentoo” with other words that qualify the geographical location, intended audience, or the activities of the group or event. If the group or event requires fees for membership of attendance, it must be made clear at the time the fee is paid what income organizers will be deriving from the event, and what proportion of event profits, if any, will be returned to the Gentoo Foundation, Inc. as a donation. The website for the group or event does not imply that it is official or otherwise endorsed by the Gentoo Foundation, Inc. The group or event agrees to adhere to the Gentoo Community Code of Conduct. The group or event also adopts a specific Code of Conduct governing the behavior of participants. A group or event may use a logo that incorporates the Gentoo logo by adding a word or picture that identifies the locality (for example, the name of a city, or a stylized image of an identifiable city landmark), audience, or activities of the group of event. For the installfest named 'Gentoo Linux InstallFest' you will need to follow the Gentoo CoC for the event. For the installfest named 'Linux InstallFest' and the description of that particular installfest describes installing Gentoo as the primary objective the you do not need to adhere to the Gentoo CoC. The Gentoo name is not used as a Name, but a descriptor. This is following the letter of the law, we are not allowing an exception in this case. I do not support uncupling the CoC from the usage of our Name/Logo usage. There is the case for describing what fair use of our Name entails though, look at Debian for example. When You Can Use the Debian Trademarks Without Asking Permission You can use Debian trademarks to make true factual statements about Debian or communicate compatibility with your product truthfully. Your intended use qualifies as "nominative fair use" of the Debian trademarks, i.e., merely identifying that you are talking about Debian in a text, without suggesting sponsorship or endorsement. You can use Debian trademarks to describe or advertise your services or products relating to Debian in a way that is not misleading. You can use Debian trademarks to describe Debian in articles, titles or blog posts. You can make t-shirts, desktop wallpapers, caps, or other merchandise with Debian trademarks for non-commercial usage. https://www.debian.org/trademark#policy
(In reply to Matthew Thode ( prometheanfire ) from comment #9) > /me puts his foundation president hat on > > I do not support uncupling the CoC from the usage of our Name/Logo usage. > Is that a unilateral final decision, or is there a board that has to vote and blah blah and so on?
(In reply to Matthew Thode ( prometheanfire ) from comment #9) > > There is the case for describing what fair use of our Name entails though, > look at Debian for example. > > When You Can Use the Debian Trademarks Without Asking Permission > > ... For anybody who isn't already aware I'd just point out that what follows isn't really a Debian policy so much as an explanation of how trademark law works. Debian isn't granting permission for nominative use so much as pointing out that nobody needs permission for nominative use under the law. Trademarks tend to be about representation. If you want to represent yourself as being affiliated with a trademark, then you need permission to do so from the holder of the trademark, either following some general grant like our policy, or specific permission under some other terms. And for what it is worth, The Linux Foundation lists a trademark policy that is much more restrictive than ours. They specifically state that an event titled "Tizen Quick Start by Rich Freeman" is not permitted (Tizen being one of their many trademarks). The "Linux" trademark itself is generally used more loosely, but it has become so generic that no organization really uses it alone as an identifier.
(In reply to georgia_tech_swagger from comment #10) > (In reply to Matthew Thode ( prometheanfire ) from comment #9) > > /me puts his foundation president hat on > > > > I do not support uncupling the CoC from the usage of our Name/Logo usage. > > > > > Is that a unilateral final decision, or is there a board that has to vote > and blah blah and so on? Nope, it's just my interpretation of our guidelines.
(In reply to Richard Freeman from comment #11) > (In reply to Matthew Thode ( prometheanfire ) from comment #9) > > > > There is the case for describing what fair use of our Name entails though, > > look at Debian for example. > > > > When You Can Use the Debian Trademarks Without Asking Permission > > > > ... > > For anybody who isn't already aware I'd just point out that what follows > isn't really a Debian policy so much as an explanation of how trademark law > works. Debian isn't granting permission for nominative use so much as > pointing out that nobody needs permission for nominative use under the law. > > Trademarks tend to be about representation. If you want to represent > yourself as being affiliated with a trademark, then you need permission to > do so from the holder of the trademark, either following some general grant > like our policy, or specific permission under some other terms. > > And for what it is worth, The Linux Foundation lists a trademark policy that > is much more restrictive than ours. They specifically state that an event > titled "Tizen Quick Start by Rich Freeman" is not permitted (Tizen being one > of their many trademarks). The "Linux" trademark itself is generally used > more loosely, but it has become so generic that no organization really uses > it alone as an identifier. Yep, I should have made that more clear (talking about fair use).
(In reply to Matthew Thode ( prometheanfire ) from comment #9) > > There is the case for describing what fair use of our Name entails though, > look at Debian for example. > > When You Can Use the Debian Trademarks Without Asking Permission > > You can use Debian trademarks to make true factual statements about > Debian or communicate compatibility with your product truthfully. > Your intended use qualifies as "nominative fair use" of the Debian > trademarks, i.e., merely identifying that you are talking about Debian in a > text, without suggesting sponsorship or endorsement. > You can use Debian trademarks to describe or advertise your services or > products relating to Debian in a way that is not misleading. > You can use Debian trademarks to describe Debian in articles, titles or > blog posts. > You can make t-shirts, desktop wallpapers, caps, or other merchandise > with Debian trademarks for non-commercial usage. > > https://www.debian.org/trademark#policy Enumerating many things such as these out carefully on the policy page would be a good first step in the right direction. While I obviously want more, I won't let progress be the enemy of perfection.
(In reply to Matthew Thode ( prometheanfire ) from comment #9) > When You Can Use the Debian Trademarks Without Asking Permission > You can make t-shirts, desktop wallpapers, caps, or other merchandise > with Debian trademarks for non-commercial usage. Specific clarification in this case: This implicit permission applies only for the unmodified trademarks. Any modifications of them (creative, artwork, gross distortions) is not permitted by trademark law unless otherwise authorized (this is a contributing factor to why the present Name/Logo guidelines were put together, along with the artwork approval group).
We are not adjusting the guidelines at this time; we believe the names and marks that we hold as assets have value and must be protected from mis-use. -A
