[darcs-users] how should we relicense the Darcs logo? (if at all)
me at worldmaker.net
Thu Jul 16 00:42:32 UTC 2009
Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 06:43:32PM +0100, Eric Kow wrote:
>> action, we should be left with a GPL licensed logo, much
>> like the Mercurial folks:
>> And that might be OK too as a fall-back most-conservative license that
>> we could relax on a case-by-case basis...
> IANAL, but I believe that you are confusing copyright licensing with
> trademark licensing.
At this point, I think the assumption is that _both_ are up for grabs.
Now that we have the Oversight + Conservancy we, as the darcs community,
have the opportunity to seek a stronger trademark and deeper control of
when, where, and how the logo is used. That would be trademark/policy.
On the copyright side the GPL isn't considered a good license for
artwork, so we have the opportunity to, for instance, push it into a
(more liberal) Creative Commons copyright license. The copyright and
trademark/policy ultimately work hand in hand, so we might as well get
Questions we can ask:
Is darcs a strong "brand" that deserves a strong (possibly, registered)
Should the logo only be used for "project-approved" reasons?
My own suggestions would be to explicitly license the CC by-sa license
(attribution, share-alike), which honors the GPL intention of copyleft,
but is a better well-recognized license for art.
As for trademark/policy I don't see a reason to strongly trademark the
logo (darcs isn't Firefox) and I think the logo should be allowed to be
used liberally under whichever copyright license is chosen, with perhaps
only a liability disclaimer that use of the logo does not imply any
direct relationship with darcs itself. But IANAL and even that might not
More information about the darcs-users