[sldev] [VWR] Artwork licence

[Rob Lanphier]

There's no reason in principle /that I'm aware of/ that we can't update
to by CC-sa 3.0.  However, I haven't done a detailed review of the delta
between the licenses.

Based on your November 13 email, the trademark issue is being tracked in
our internal JIRA as ND-5414.  There's been some internal discussion
earlier this week, but I don't have an ETA for an answer.

I can't make an official response here, other than to refer you to our
trademark policy:
http://secondlife.com/corporate/trademark/

I will say that trademark law is extremely tricky:
http://linux.sys-con.com/read/46909.htm

....and I don't think it's as simple as you describe.  Speaking of
Debian, take a look at the draft trademark policy:
http://wiki.mako.cc/TrademarkFreedom

I'm very interested in what they eventually settle on, because while
some Debian developers have been extremely critical of the trademark
policies of Mozilla Foundation, they themselves don't yet offer and
example of a better way.

Did you send the CC-sa question to licensing@?  I don't see it in the
queue.  If not, please send it there.

Thanks
Rob

On 11/22/07 7:01 AM, Robin Cornelius wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I wanted to bring this up here so some of the opensource Lindens can
> hear as well, as this is essentially an open source question :-)
>
> The current artwork (excluding the trademarks) is licensed under the
> "Creative Commons license Attribution-Share
> Alike 2.5"  There are some small issues with this license to do with
> compatibility which may even cause an issue for anyone currently
> distributing there own build of viewers. As the code you are
> distributing is not only under the GPL but also the CC SA 2.5 which
> are not fully compatible. I am not a licensing expert but i know CC SA
> 2.5 is regarded by Debian as "non-free"
>
> This issue is resolved in the CC SA 3.0 license, with some subtitle
> changes to compatibility, but no changes to the "spirit" of the
> licence
>
> Any chance of moving the artwork to CC SA 3.0 license to solve this
> issue? Its a bit of a blocker for including in Linux distributions.
> For Debian it would mean we could not place the viewer in the main
> repository it would have to go into contrib with the artwork going
> into non-free, this is not really desired especially as you already
> have released the code as GPL and thats where all the goodies are, the
> artwork is just necessary to make it run.
>
> The other issue is with the trademark logos and name.
>
> The licensing page is not 100% clear on this. For instance are we
> allowed to use the secondlife hand logo and the name "secondlife" in
> the Debian package. We are essentially using the source code as
> distributed + patches to make it work or keep it running + may be
> patches to make things better, as various people already do in there
> homebrew viewers.
>
> I really would like to avoid a "mozilla" situation where we have
> Thunderbird and Firefox renamed "Ice dove" and "Ice weasel" (and new
> logos) just because mozilla said if the code is not 100% the same you
> can't use the names or logos. All this does is alienate users.
>
> These questions have been fed through licensing at lindenlabs but i am
> pretty sure that is rewritten to /dev/null by postfix. As this is a
> opensource question that really affects the future of the viewer
> within linux distributions I though it should be discussed here.
>
> Regards
>
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>   


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20071122/77e52549/signature.pgp