On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:33 AM Pamela Chestek <pchestek(a)gmail.com> wrote:
IMO, a requirement that a logo be included is not an additional restriction permitted by
the GPLv3. Under Section 7(b), it is not a "legal notice" (a trademark is not a
notice, it's branding) or an "author attribution" (copyright authorship and
branding are entirely different things). It is effectively the opposite of what Sections
7(c), (d) and (e) permit, forcing the misrepresentation of the product if someone has
modified the code (the logo indicates that the product is the authentic original software
but it may not be if it's been modified), it is forcing using a name for publicity
purposes, and it is requiring the use of a trademark, not prohibiting it.
IANAL, but it's effectively an advertising clause, though I'm not sure if
it's
part of the license of the code or the name. The GPL specifically
doesn't cover licensing the name itself, so trademark rules can be
whatever.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!