Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280
The logo's license is:
Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj. Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
- The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you drew the original logo. - The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to your product name. - The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative proportions of its elements are maintained.
---end---
Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2020-05-14 at 11:39 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280
The logo's license is:
Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj. Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
- The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you drew the original logo.
- The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to
your product name.
- The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative
proportions of its elements are maintained.
---end---
Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package?
- From my non-lawyer perspective I think this is not really true.
I think you can modify logo as long as you say that you've used as a base logo which was created by Lua.org and you can do any modifications to it. But if you change anything else than orbiting text or scale, you must write that you've used original logo and you changed it the way that it does not represent original Lua thing, but rather did something on top of original logo create by Lua.org.
But IANAL.
-- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
- -- Igor Raits ignatenkobrain@fedoraproject.org
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 8:44 AM Igor Raits ignatenkobrain@fedoraproject.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2020-05-14 at 11:39 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280
The logo's license is:
Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj. Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
- The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you drew the original logo.
- The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to
your product name.
- The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative
proportions of its elements are maintained.
---end---
Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package?
- From my non-lawyer perspective I think this is not really true.
I think you can modify logo as long as you say that you've used as a base logo which was created by Lua.org and you can do any modifications to it. But if you change anything else than orbiting text or scale, you must write that you've used original logo and you changed it the way that it does not represent original Lua thing, but rather did something on top of original logo create by Lua.org.
I don't agree. The license is pretty clear: "The only modification you can make ..." and the license is based on a FOSS license that includes permission to modify (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Modern_Variant...) but the Lua logo license removes that permission.
Is the logo actually used in any way? It didn't seem to be on a cursory review.
Richard
On 14. 05. 20 15:59, Richard Fontana wrote:
Is the logo actually used in any way? It didn't seem to be on a cursory review.
It's installed to:
/usr/share/jupyter/kernels/lua/logo-32x32.png /usr/share/jupyter/kernels/lua/logo-64x64.png
Jupytr Notebook (pkg: python3-notebook) dispalys it when run via:
$ python3 -m notebook
In the webbroswer, click New (almost in top right corner) and select "Lua". The new page has the logo in top right corder.
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:39:07AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280
The logo's license is:
Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj. Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
- The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that
you drew the original logo.
- The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to your
product name.
- The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative proportions of its
elements are maintained.
---end---
Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package?
My thoughts are that the logo should be removed from the package. My thinking is it puts an unnecessary burden on users of Fedora who want to rebuild and remix. The logo is not condition-free in the context that most people would be expecting from a project like Fedora.
It basically begins like an attribution-type license like a BSD license but then has very specific restrictions on what you can do and even those do not read clearly to me. What is a product in this context? Do the terms carry over to those who receive the redistribution from us? Can our modified logo adapted for product text be under a different license?
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?
Tom
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:39 AM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280
The logo's license is:
Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj. Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
- The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not claim
that you drew the original logo.
- The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to your product name.
- The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative proportions of
its elements are maintained.
---end---
Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package?
-- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
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:
- 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?
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@redhat.com 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:
- 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
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@redhat.com 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@redhat.com 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:
- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Pam,
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.
Tom
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:49 AM Pamela Chestek pchestek@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 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@redhat.com 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@redhat.com 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:
- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
I am, as described - a sharey license on the logo in the code and restrictions on the use in trademark guidelines.
Pam
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:35 AM Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
Pam,
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.
Tom
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:49 AM Pamela Chestek pchestek@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 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@redhat.com 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@redhat.com 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:
- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
* Pamela Chestek:
I am, as described - a sharey license on the logo in the code and restrictions on the use in trademark guidelines.
Isn't that quite common?
For example, the trademark license published by the Eclipse Foundation attempts to use trademarks to prevent redistribution of modified sources without full-scale renaming of everything:
| Unless otherwise agreed to in advance in writing (which may be in | email form) by Eclipse, the following restrictions apply: | […] | Nobody other than Eclipse open source projects may develop or | maintain software packages that use 'org.eclipse' in their namespace
https://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php
But your initial observation applies here as well—these additional restrictions are rather deeply buried on their web site.
I think the point of note here is that requiring the removal of trademarks in modification scenarios does not conflict with the open source license of the Eclipse works. The hypothetical concern is that a trademarks guidelines for use somehow create a situation where it is not possible to comply with them and the open source software copyright license at the same time, and I believe Pam is asserting that she did not think that was possible.
Tom
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 1:29 PM Florian Weimer fw@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
- Pamela Chestek:
I am, as described - a sharey license on the logo in the code and restrictions on the use in trademark guidelines.
Isn't that quite common?
For example, the trademark license published by the Eclipse Foundation attempts to use trademarks to prevent redistribution of modified sources without full-scale renaming of everything:
| Unless otherwise agreed to in advance in writing (which may be in | email form) by Eclipse, the following restrictions apply: | […] | Nobody other than Eclipse open source projects may develop or | maintain software packages that use 'org.eclipse' in their namespace
https://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php
But your initial observation applies here as well—these additional restrictions are rather deeply buried on their web site.
Close, but not quite. My concern is an express copyright license that allows very liberal use. So I am person who wants to modify the software, add malware, and go ahead and plant a logo on it that is under a license that says essentially I can use the logo any way I want. So my use of the logo is licensed, my malware is licensed (because I can modify the software anyway I want), I'm good. Ok, maybe you have trademark guidelines that say I can't do that, but who cares? I have an express license to the logo and I may never have seen the guidelines anyway (much less agreed to them), so they aren't enforceable against me. Why aren't I home free? You can say "ah, that copyright license says you can use the *design* but not the *goodwill*." Good luck with that - will it work? Sometimes, yes. Always, no. The moral of the story is don't put your logos under a FOSS (or CC) license. All rights reserved on those suckers. Which is my original quibble, the copyright license IS the right place to be putting the restriction.
Pam
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:43 PM Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
I think the point of note here is that requiring the removal of trademarks in modification scenarios does not conflict with the open source license of the Eclipse works. The hypothetical concern is that a trademarks guidelines for use somehow create a situation where it is not possible to comply with them and the open source software copyright license at the same time, and I believe Pam is asserting that she did not think that was possible.
Tom
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 1:29 PM Florian Weimer fw@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
- Pamela Chestek:
I am, as described - a sharey license on the logo in the code and restrictions on the use in trademark guidelines.
Isn't that quite common?
For example, the trademark license published by the Eclipse Foundation attempts to use trademarks to prevent redistribution of modified sources without full-scale renaming of everything:
| Unless otherwise agreed to in advance in writing (which may be in | email form) by Eclipse, the following restrictions apply: | […] | Nobody other than Eclipse open source projects may develop or | maintain software packages that use 'org.eclipse' in their namespace
https://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php
But your initial observation applies here as well—these additional restrictions are rather deeply buried on their web site.
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:38 PM Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 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:
- 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.
- 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?
I agree with the overall direction of this. Some of the specific language could use further iteration. For example, I am not sure this needs to be broader than "logos" since only logo image files would be associated with a non-FOSS copyright license or other terms included in the software limiting permissions normally required of Fedora content.
Richard
Tom
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:39 AM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280
The logo's license is:
Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj. Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
- The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you drew the original logo.
- The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to your product name.
- The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative proportions of its elements are maintained.
---end---
Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package?
-- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 15. 05. 20 21:56, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:38 PM Tom Callawaytcallawa@redhat.com 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:
- 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.
- 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?
I agree with the overall direction of this. Some of the specific language could use further iteration. For example, I am not sure this needs to be broader than "logos" since only logo image files would be associated with a non-FOSS copyright license or other terms included in the software limiting permissions normally required of Fedora content.
Hello. What can be done to allow this? Thanks
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 4:01 PM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
Hello. What can be done to allow this? Thanks
I'll work on an edit to spot's draft incorporating Richard's feedback. (Oh how I long to move the legal docs to a git-based workflow so we can do PRs). In the meantime, if you want to stop stripping the logo from the package, it seems like the consensus is that you can (although I'd wait a little bit to give time for Richard or someone to come in and smack my hand), and we'll figure out the specific language of the policy update in parallel.
On 26. 08. 20 14:51, Ben Cotton wrote:
In the meantime, if you want to stop stripping the logo from the package, it seems like the consensus is that you can (although I'd wait a little bit to give time for Richard or someone to come in and smack my hand), and we'll figure out the specific language of the policy update in parallel.
Thanks Ben, I'll stop stripping the logo and if the black helicopters come, I'll redirect them to Lafayette, IN.
(Waiting for Richard's confirmation actually.)
On 26. 08. 20 14:56, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 26. 08. 20 14:51, Ben Cotton wrote:
In the meantime, if you want to stop stripping the logo from the package, it seems like the consensus is that you can (although I'd wait a little bit to give time for Richard or someone to come in and smack my hand), and we'll figure out the specific language of the policy update in parallel.
Thanks Ben, I'll stop stripping the logo and if the black helicopters come, I'll redirect them to Lafayette, IN.
(Waiting for Richard's confirmation actually.)
Serious question: What do I put in the License tag?
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:47 AM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
Serious question: What do I put in the License tag?
I'm of two minds here: on the one hand, one could argue that it's really a trademark usage not a software usage, so the license doesn't matter and you can leave it out of the spec file. That's the easier route, but I'm not sure it's the correct route. On the other hand, you had previously suggested "GPLv2 and Lua Logo", which is more correct (and more descriptive as well), but has the obvious downfall of not being on the Good License list. We can certainly add it, but it would probably belong in a listing under the not-yet-added "when it's okay to use trademarks" content that spot first drafted.
I'm a little leery of adding an explicit list of approved things under the general "here's when it's okay to use trademarks" because that defeats the purpose of the general statement to some degree.
I suppose the answer for now is "let me get back to you on that"
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:18 PM Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:47 AM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
Serious question: What do I put in the License tag?
I'm of two minds here: on the one hand, one could argue that it's really a trademark usage not a software usage, so the license doesn't matter and you can leave it out of the spec file. That's the easier route, but I'm not sure it's the correct route. On the other hand, you had previously suggested "GPLv2 and Lua Logo", which is more correct (and more descriptive as well), but has the obvious downfall of not being on the Good License list. We can certainly add it, but it would probably belong in a listing under the not-yet-added "when it's okay to use trademarks" content that spot first drafted.
I'm a little leery of adding an explicit list of approved things under the general "here's when it's okay to use trademarks" because that defeats the purpose of the general statement to some degree.
I suppose the answer for now is "let me get back to you on that"
I suggest just not referencing the logo license in the License: tag for now. Maybe someday we will want to have that sort of detail, or maybe not.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 8:51 AM Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
(Oh how I long to move the legal docs to a git-based workflow so we can do PRs).
Incidentally, I agree that this would be nice.
Richard
Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 8:51 AM Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
(Oh how I long to move the legal docs to a git-based workflow so we can do PRs).
Incidentally, I agree that this would be nice.
I'll float the possibility of either rolling at least some of the legal docs (like the set of valid License: tags) into the existing packaging guidelines.
Alternately, I'm sure the docs team could pretty easily set up a repo for legal docs that works like the packaging guidelines repo.
- J<
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:39 PM Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 8:51 AM Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
(Oh how I long to move the legal docs to a git-based workflow so we can do PRs).
Incidentally, I agree that this would be nice.
I'll float the possibility of either rolling at least some of the legal docs (like the set of valid License: tags) into the existing packaging guidelines.
Alternately, I'm sure the docs team could pretty easily set up a repo for legal docs that works like the packaging guidelines repo.
Thanks!
Richard
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:40 PM Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
I'll float the possibility of either rolling at least some of the legal docs (like the set of valid License: tags) into the existing packaging guidelines.
For ACL reasons, it's probably best to keep it a separate repo, but...
Alternately, I'm sure the docs team could pretty easily set up a repo for legal docs that works like the packaging guidelines repo.
...now that Bryan Sutula and I are taking the front-line legal role, we're both in agreement that this is a good thing and we should do it. Now we just have to plan the work. :-)
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 15:54, Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:40 PM Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
I'll float the possibility of either rolling at least some of the legal docs (like the set of valid License: tags) into the existing packaging guidelines.
For ACL reasons, it's probably best to keep it a separate repo, but...
Alternately, I'm sure the docs team could pretty easily set up a repo for legal docs that works like the packaging guidelines repo.
...now that Bryan Sutula and I are taking the front-line legal role, we're both in agreement that this is a good thing and we should do it. Now we just have to plan the work. :-)
Thank you so much for the initiative, everyone! :) This will definitely help the packaging team.
On 9/4/20 9:53 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
Alternately, I'm sure the docs team could pretty easily set up a repo for legal docs that works like the packaging guidelines repo.
...now that Bryan Sutula and I are taking the front-line legal role, we're both in agreement that this is a good thing and we should do it. Now we just have to plan the work. :-)
This would be an awesome project to bring Fedora Legal documentation and policy into the 2020s. Pure plaintext wikis make me frown.
I have learned a lot about AsciiDoc and Antora over the years and could probably advise on some best practices for structuring content. Modules are a really helpful but poorly utilized feature of organizing Antora docs in Fedora. Would love to see it get used well in a project like this.
(P.S. – Yes, I am volunteering for some of this work!)
On 14. 05. 20 11:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280
The logo's license is:
Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj. Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
- The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that
you drew the original logo.
- The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to your
product name.
- The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative proportions of its
elements are maintained.
---end---
Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package?
Before the logo is officially allowed, if I want to proceed with packaging ilua, do I need to strip the logo from sources, or deleting it in %prep is enough?
On 23. 05. 20 11:15, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 05. 20 11:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280
The logo's license is:
Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj. Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
- The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that
you drew the original logo.
- The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to your
product name.
- The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative proportions of its
elements are maintained.
---end---
Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package?
Before the logo is officially allowed, if I want to proceed with packaging ilua, do I need to strip the logo from sources, or deleting it in %prep is enough?
I'll proceed with stripping it from sources until I get more information.