Re: [Fsfe-uk] Red Hat and the DMCA

[Alex Hudson]

On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 16:55, Philip Hands wrote:
> > logos. The official ones cannot be used by redistributers, for many
> > of the same reasons, because they are used as marques, to show that 
> > they are 'the real thing'.
> <snip>
> 
> Actually, the fact that you even said "redistributors" in conjunction
> with Debian shows that you've missed the point somewhat --- given that
> Debian does not distribute anything

Sorry, by "redistributors" I meant people giving out things other than
endorsed materials. By my understanding, that's not permitted? 

For example, if the Debian project produced an ISO which was marked with
the "official" logo rather than the unofficial one, surely that would
not be Free Software in the same way RedHat suffers: you would be
allowed to copy the iso verbatim, but you wouldn't be allowed to alter
it, since you're not licensed to do that.

If I'm wrong, I apologise: I'm reading http://www.debian.org/logos/,
which does not appear to be very clear - for example, the part 1) rules
on usage aren't marked as 'or' or 'and', if you understand my meaning.
That, combined with the fact they are little used (as you pointed out) I
think makes things unclear. I'm not trying to say that the situation
with Debian is that same as at RedHat, since that's obviously not the
case, just that defence of corporate image is of significant importance
to all organisations.

> AFAICS they could easily license John (and either selected others, or
> all and sundry) to use the logo, only as it already exists in files on
> exact copies of the officially released CDs, without diluting the
> strength of their trademark protection.

I think you're right. But, it's a hard line to draw: who do they
licence? and why? For example, if you can't modify the ISOs without
stripping the logos out, that's still problematic. My preferred solution
would be that they strip their logos out themselves, I don't see why the
software needs to be plastered with "RedHat" all over. Otherwise, use a
licenced logo on the software, and the trademark on all physical items
(box, manuals, stickers, etc.)

> It seems that they simply choose not to, presumably because someone
> who doesn't understand about Free Software is thinking they can use
> their market position to squeeze more money out of the CD sales.  It
> strikes me as the sort of thing that will bite them in the not too
> distant future.

Well, precisely. They need to be careful with their trademark, otherwise
they would lose it, but that's no excuse for restricting distribution of
software (which is what they have effectively done). I would hate to see
them try to draw some line in the sand, though, because then we start
getting into commercial versus non-commercial arguments, which are still
restrictive.

Cheers,

Alex.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part