I am, as described - a sharey license on the logo in the code and
restrictions on the use in trademark guidelines.
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:35 AM Tom Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
To be absolutely clear, I am not aware of any real-world examples of a set
of trademark guidelines causing incompatibilities, but with the badgeware
licenses... it's hypothetically possible that a malicious actor could try
to create such a scenario.
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:49 AM Pamela Chestek <pchestek(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:44 PM Tom Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
>> Hmmmm. I wonder what the SPDX answer is for "copyright license on a logo
>> that really should be trademark guidelines"...
>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:41 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com>
>>> On 14. 05. 20 18:37, Tom Callaway wrote:
>>> > In this case, this is a logo, which is also a trademark (though, not
>>> > registered one as far as I can see).
>>> > Since the software does not require the logo to be present (or to be
>>> > 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:
>>> > call out the following as another example of permissible content:
>>> > * Logos/trademarks are permissible, as long as all of the following
>>> > 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
>>> > 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
>>> > 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
>>> > ****
>>> > Under these criteria, the lua logo would be acceptable (as would the
>>> > Firefox/Chromium logos).
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> This is exactly the rule I assumed we already had but couldn't find.
>>> 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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Fedora Code of Conduct:
>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> List Archives: