GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 671253
Include details about the "explicit permission from trademark owners"
Last modified: 2016-03-31 13:54:58 UTC
COPYING.logos has this note: 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: It has more indications about the usage of the Debian logo (free) and the Fedora logo (restrictions listed) but doesn't say anything about the other included logos (Ubuntu and openSUSE). What are the explicit permissions? Would they also apply to forks? etc. it would be nice to clarify this.
(In reply to comment #0) > What are the explicit permissions? Would they also apply to forks? etc. it > would be nice to clarify this. The explicit permission is for their usage and shipment in Boxes *only*. I should make that very clear in this file, yes! Do you think we should also provide a '--disable-logos' configure option that disables use and distribution of logos?
Thinking about Debian, if the tarball ships with non free files, they will have to repack things to exclude those. In that sense a --disable-nonfree-logos would probably be considered useful. (but I do not know for sure).
Zeeshan, wouldn't it make sense to download the logos with permissions when needed, like you used to propose instead of shipping them?
(In reply to comment #3) > Zeeshan, wouldn't it make sense to download the logos with permissions when > needed, like you used to propose instead of shipping them? Perhaps but that requires internet connection and I would hate to assume that when there is no need. We have permission to ship the logos as well so I think we are good with: a. Making sure that license of logos is very clear stated b. Providing easy options to remove the logos for distros (I'll add that soon).
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Zeeshan, wouldn't it make sense to download the logos with permissions when > > needed, like you used to propose instead of shipping them? > > Perhaps but that requires internet connection and I would hate to assume that > when there is no need. We have permission to ship the logos as well so I think > we are good with: > > a. Making sure that license of logos is very clear stated > b. Providing easy options to remove the logos for distros (I'll add that soon). Oh and if this gets hairy somehow, I'll go for the 'dynamic download' option (shouldn't be that hard to re-implement).
Created attachment 209029 [details] [review] configure option to disable logos Provide a configure option to disable installation and build of non-free logos.
Created attachment 209030 [details] [review] Make non-free nature of logo files more explicit
Created attachment 209034 [details] [review] configure option to disable logos Provide a configure option to disable installation and build of non-free logos.
Created attachment 209035 [details] [review] configure option to disable logos Provide a configure option to disable installation and build of non-free logos.
Review of attachment 209035 [details] [review]: Looks good apart from 2 minor comments ::: configure.ac @@ +99,3 @@ + AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-logos], + [Enable distribution of non-free logos]), + [enable_logos=$enableval], I don't think this is needed, but this doesn't hurt @@ +100,3 @@ + [Enable distribution of non-free logos]), + [enable_logos=$enableval], + [enable_logos=true]) =yes would be more consistent with what autoconf does under the hood
Created attachment 209040 [details] [review] configure option to disable logos Provide a configure option to disable installation and build of non-free logos.
Attachment 209030 [details] pushed as 9e5b274 - Make non-free nature of logo files more explicit Attachment 209040 [details] pushed as b15944c - configure option to disable logos