GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 671251
do not include non-free content
Last modified: 2016-03-31 13:57:31 UTC
> Unlike rest of the Boxes contents, product logos are not licensed under LGPLv2+ > Boxes has acquired explicit permission from trademark owners for the usage and > shipment of their logos[1]. Following are the owners for each logo: > > (...) > > [1] with the exception of Debian logo due to its very liberal licensing: This doesn't list licenses of those logos, but it's implied they are non free.
(In reply to comment #0) > > Unlike rest of the Boxes contents, product logos are not licensed under LGPLv2+ > > Boxes has acquired explicit permission from trademark owners for the usage and > > shipment of their logos[1]. Following are the owners for each logo: > > > > (...) > > > > [1] with the exception of Debian logo due to its very liberal licensing: > > This doesn't list licenses of those logos, but it's implied they are non free. Yeah, I tried to find out what exactly is the license for each logo but failed. All I know is that we can use these logos in Boxes. I'm a bit confused though what exactly you are asking for cause you also filed bug#671253.
(I explained on IRC, adding this as a comment for history). This bug is about *not* distributing non free content; bug 671253 is "if it's decided to distribute non free content, the respective licenses should be clear".
Why don't you do what virt-manager is doing? They inspect the virtual machine for icons to use so they don't have to ship them with virt-manager: https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/inspection-in-virt-manager-3/ https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/inspection-in-virt-manager/ http://cgwalters.livejournal.com/19030.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-new-configuration-files.html It really sucks for free desktop virtualisation software to ship with non-free bits.
The logo would have to be on the installer isos, we didn't find appropriately sized ones. Something that I proposed but which didn't get traction was to use something similar to the icon-naming spec to look up the logo, and to put the non-free logos in a separate package. This way if the package is installed, we get the logos, if it's not, we can fallback to different logos, and we don't have to ship the non-free logos in the tarball.
(In reply to comment #3) > Why don't you do what virt-manager is doing? They inspect the virtual machine > for icons to use so they don't have to ship them with virt-manager: > > https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/inspection-in-virt-manager-3/ > https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/inspection-in-virt-manager/ > http://cgwalters.livejournal.com/19030.html > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-new-configuration-files.html As Christophe already pointed out, thats not possible in our case. > It really sucks for free desktop virtualisation software to ship with non-free > bits. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=671253#c3 Now I'll await a patch that does that if this sucks so much. :) These will help you: https://www.redhat.com/archives/virt-tools-list/2012-February/msg00092.html http://bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=207967 Happy hacking!
(In reply to comment #4) > The logo would have to be on the installer isos, we didn't find appropriately > sized ones. > Something that I proposed but which didn't get traction was to use something > similar to the icon-naming spec to look up the logo, and to put the non-free > logos in a separate package. This way if the package is installed, we get the > logos, if it's not, we can fallback to different logos, and we don't have to > ship the non-free logos in the tarball. Its not that I didn't like this idea but AFAICT we can't do this as the permissions given are very specific to Boxes and I was told that we must ensure that they are used only and only in/for Boxes and therefore they must be shipped (if shipped at all) in Boxes.
A "gnome-boxes-logos" or "gnome-boxes-nonfree" tarball would work equally well for that I guess.
(In reply to comment #7) > A "gnome-boxes-logos" or "gnome-boxes-nonfree" tarball would work equally well > for that I guess. That is *probably* correct, feel free to move the logos to a separate module.
This should really be fixed for 3.6, reopening.
Laurent Bigonville brought this to my attention, asking about the Ubuntu Circle of Friends. Ubuntu artwork is made available for distribution under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0; A suitable circle of friends is distributed in Ubuntu systems as: /usr/share/icons/ubuntu-mono-dark/apps/22/distributor-logo.svg /usr/share/doc/ubuntu-mono/copyright (c) Canonical Ltd 2004-2011 Unless otherwise indicated, artwork is available under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license v3.0 or any later version. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Note that just like for "Debian", references for "Ubuntu" may be subject to trademark restrictions at the point of use; if the name and branding are used in other than merely descriptive, or satirical, purposes. http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy However this will not restrict distribution of the files as long as CC-BY-SA-3.0 is suitable for inclusion in GNOME-Boxes.
I can confirm that the Fedora logos are not available under a Free License, specifically because any modification rights granted in the copyright license would cause a conflict with the trademark licensing terms and put the trademark at risk.
It appears to me that all policies on trademarks as used by GNOME Boxes are irrelevant since GNOME Boxes will simply be using them to refer to the distributions themselves, which AFAIK is allowed under trademark law. The Debian swirl (without "Debian" in it) is under a quite permissive license: http://www.debian.org/logos/ There is work going on to release the version with "Debian" in it under an equally permissive license.
(In reply to comment #11) > I can confirm that the Fedora logos are not available under a Free License, > specifically because any modification rights granted in the copyright license > would cause a conflict with the trademark licensing terms and put the trademark > at risk. We had the whole discussion about fedora logos already with fedora legal and board and current way of boxes shipping them actually is more in line with advice from both these entities. (In reply to comment #10) > Laurent Bigonville brought this to my attention, asking about the Ubuntu Circle > of Friends. Thanks so much for the details on the license of your logo. I think I must point out that this bug is now more about "the main gnome-boxes package should consist completely of Free content" rather than "are we complying with the licensing of the various logos we ship". I already took care of the latter AFAICT.
(In reply to comment #13) > I think I must point out that this bug is now more about "the main gnome-boxes > package should consist completely of Free content" [...] That's been the bug title all along :)
Well the problem is that the COPYING.logos is only listing the copyright owner of the logos, not the license of them. For the Ubuntu Circle of Friend, it's nowhere written that the license is CC-SA-BY-3.0 which is actually a free license.
(In reply to comment #15) > Well the problem is that the COPYING.logos is only listing the copyright owner > of the logos, not the license of them. For the Ubuntu Circle of Friend, it's > nowhere written that the license is CC-SA-BY-3.0 which is actually a free > license. I was given explicit permission from Canonical to use and ship the logo in question so licensing doesn't exactly matter here AFAIK but sure, feel free to provide a patch to make the licensing explicit.
Zeeshan: the ideal would be to include any additional permissions received in the upstream 'COPYING' file (verbatim), so that Debian, and others, then know under exactly what terms and basis a particular file is being made available for distribution to their downstream users. Nobody else can easily supply a patch to do this, if they do not have a copy of the additional permission(s) granted/received.
Created attachment 218123 [details] [review] Remove non-free logo files Lets put the non-free logos into a separate package/repository: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-boxes-nonfree
(In reply to comment #18) > Created an attachment (id=218123) [details] [review] > Remove non-free logo files Now we release gnome-boxes-nonfree just before our next release and merge this patch. Unless of course, I made some mistake?
Attachment 218123 [details] pushed as 0ef5e4a - Remove non-free logo files