PDA

View Full Version : Is trademarking logos consistent with open sourcing software?



Eisenwinter
January 7th, 2010, 06:53 PM
So we all use Free software. Most of us use it because we agree with the ideology (on top of it also satisfying our needs from our computers).

Yesterday there was a thread here about how some company was "infriging copyright" due to them "using the Ubuntu and Debian logos", or at least somewhat "copying the logos".

Why are the logos even copyrighted and trademarked?

Isn't it hypocritical, when someone who supports a big free software project, copyrights a logo which is designed to represent that project?

If the software is free, the logo should be free as well, don't you think?

It's like saying "We support freedom and are against copyright, but only as long as it doesn't affect us".

Do you think this is a hypocritical behaviour?

I certainly do.

EDIT:

Link (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1374198) to the thread in question.

NoaHall
January 7th, 2010, 06:55 PM
So we all use Free software. Most of us use it because we agree with the ideology (on top of it also satisfying our needs from our computers).

Yesterday there was a thread here about how some company was "infriging copyright" due to them "using the Ubuntu and Debian logos", or at least somewhat "copying the logos".

Why are the logos even copyrighted and trademarked?

Isn't it hypocritical, when someone who supports a big free software project, copyrights a logo which is designed to represent that project?

If the software is free, the logo should be free as well, don't you think?

It's like saying "We support freedom and are against copyright, but only as long as it doesn't affect us".

Do you think this is a hypocritical behaviour?

I certainly do.

No, because Open Source user != Stallman's follower
We can believe in Open source, and copyright, side by side.
We might believe programs should be openly developed, doesn't mean we believe songs, logos, etc should be free or free to distribute.

SuperSonic4
January 7th, 2010, 06:57 PM
So we all use Free software. Most of us use it because we agree with the ideology (on top of it also satisfying our needs from our computers).

Yesterday there was a thread here about how some company was "infriging copyright" due to them "using the Ubuntu and Debian logos", or at least somewhat "copying the logos".

Why are the logos even copyrighted and trademarked?

Isn't it hypocritical, when someone who supports a big free software project, copyrights a logo which is designed to represent that project?

If the software is free, the logo should be free as well, don't you think?

It's like saying "We support freedom and are against copyright, but only as long as it doesn't affect us".

Do you think this is a hypocritical behaviour?

I certainly do.

No, the logo largely defines ubuntu and anything carrying the logo or something similar has the potential to do damage to ubuntu's reputation.

Copyrighting the logo safeguards the users by making them know the ubuntu logo is ubuntu

Eisenwinter
January 7th, 2010, 06:59 PM
No, because Open Source user != Stallman's follower
We can believe in Open source, and copyright, side by side.
We might believe programs should be openly developed, doesn't mean we believe songs, logos, etc should be free or free to distribute.
But those two things contradict each other.

I'm not speaking about whether the user is a hypocrite, I'm asking whether the people who produce free software (such as the canonical guys) are hypocrites for making their software free, but not the logo which symbolises their software.

alphaniner
January 7th, 2010, 07:03 PM
But those two things contradict each other.

I'm not speaking about whether the user is a hypocrite, I'm asking whether the people who produce free software (such as the canonical guys) are hypocrites for making their software free, but not the logo which symbolises their software.

It's called a trademark for a reason. It's the mark of one's trade. Such protection exists to prevent fraud, nothing else.

NoaHall
January 7th, 2010, 07:03 PM
But those two things contradict each other.

I'm not speaking about whether the user is a hypocrite, I'm asking whether the people who produce free software (such as the canonical guys) are hypocrites for making their software free, but not the logo which symbolises their software.

No they don't. We might believe in non-copyrighted software, doesn't mean we HAVE to believe in non-copyrighted anything else. Just because may of us do, doesn't mean we have to. You can't take what applies for software and apply it to the rest of the world.

phrostbyte
January 7th, 2010, 07:05 PM
I think you are making an incorrect assumption. You can not paint everyone here with the same brush. There is a lot of people who use Ubuntu (maybe even a majority?) who do not care about the free software ideology.

doas777
January 7th, 2010, 07:08 PM
what you are forgetting, is that turnabout is fair play, even if it is hypocritical.

besides the physiology of the human brain makes us all hypocrites anyway, so it's not that big a deal.

Mornedhel
January 7th, 2010, 07:12 PM
I don't believe you guys have not realized this, but FOSS is not, never was, and never will be, "against copyright".

The GPL *relies* on copyright to be able to actually enforce anything. From the Copyleft section of the GPL article on Wikipedia:


This requirement is known as copyleft. It earns its legal power from the use of copyright on software programs. Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), he or she can be sued by the original author under copyright law.

Copyright is good.

Software patents, now...

Chronon
January 7th, 2010, 07:12 PM
No, because Open Source user != Stallman's follower
We can believe in Open source, and copyright, side by side.
We might believe programs should be openly developed, doesn't mean we believe songs, logos, etc should be free or free to distribute.

Another point: If you are pro-GPL and agree with forcing people to release derived works under similar terms then you must embrace copyright as that's the only leverage you have to enforce such behavior. The strength of the GPL rests on the strength of copyright.

EDIT: Mornedhel beat me to it, apparently.

Eisenwinter
January 7th, 2010, 07:13 PM
Well, I believe in sharing everything.

I share files, I share code, I share what I eat and drink, etc.

From my point of view, it's hypocritical of someone who makes free software, to make the logo which represents that software, not free.

As far as the two things being different, well, I think that since the logo DOES represent the free software, it should be free as well, because it is part of it.
The very fact it represents the free software makes it a part of it.

cascade9
January 7th, 2010, 07:13 PM
No, the logo largely defines ubuntu and anything carrying the logo or something similar has the potential to do damage to ubuntu's reputation.

Copyrighting the logo safeguards the users by making them know the ubuntu logo is ubuntu

*claps* Thankfully, somebody got in before I did. :mrgreen:

phrostbyte
January 7th, 2010, 07:14 PM
Well, I believe in sharing everything.

I share files, I share code, I share what I eat and drink, etc.

From my point of view, it's hypocritical of someone who makes free software, to make the logo which represents that software, not free.

As far as the two things being different, well, I think that since the logo DOES represent the free software, it should be free as well, because it is part of it.
The very fact it represents the free software makes it a part of it.

I don't disagree with you at all. But do realize this forum is not FSF Central. Unfortunately of course. :D

adelphos
January 7th, 2010, 07:21 PM
You should think carefully about the purpose of free software before crudely trying to apply the principles elsewhere. Works for practical use (software) are very different from works identifying an opinion, trade, or brand. Ever heard of the Creative Commons license, which is endorsed by the FSF? It requires attribution and (one of them, anyway) forbids derivation.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/legalcode

Basically, for identifying marks and writings that represent my opinion, ideology, or trade... if I allowed others to modify them or fail to give attribution, I could be misrepresented and my reputation harmed.

Sharing something does not mean allowing them to change it or plagiarize.

Eisenwinter
January 7th, 2010, 07:26 PM
Basically, for identifying marks and writings that represent my opinion, ideology, or trade... if I allowed others to modify them or fail to give attribution, I could be misrepresented and my reputation harmed.

Sharing something does not mean allowing them to change it or plagiarize.
I guess my world view is different.

I, personally, would not change your writings which represent your opinion, because I know I wouldn't want it to be done to me.

Whether or not everyone else thinks like me about this... that's a different thing.

staf0048
January 7th, 2010, 07:35 PM
I think the Ubuntu Logo needs to be copyrighted to protect the USER. If it is not copyrighted or trademarked, anyone can use it, even malicously.

Think of this scenario. Newbie to Linux has heard of Ubuntu and wants to download a copy for herself. She types Ubuntu in Google and searches. She see's a lot of references to Ubuntu and goes to one that looks legit. It has the logo, the name, everything. However, unbenounced to her it is not what she was looking for. Because there was no trademark on the logo, someone has taken the name and graphic and used for their own purposes. So instead of Ubuntu, she got something else entirely.

Trademarks, while not perfect by any means, help stop this type of fraud. I beleive in Free Software, but it's code that makes a machine work. Logos represent a company/organization in the marketplace. Trademarks help stop misrepresentation.

adelphos
January 7th, 2010, 07:36 PM
I guess my world view is different.

I, personally, would not change your writings which represent your opinion, because I know I wouldn't want it to be done to me.

Whether or not everyone else thinks like me about this... that's a different thing.

Right. My point is that, for software, it makes sense that people should be allowed to change it, and attribution doesn't seem necessary. After all, it's just a tool for practical use. For a logo, a paper, a book, etc that belongs to someone ese, I shouldn't be allowed to change it or claim it as my own. That could potentially hurt them. However, I should be allowed to redistribute and share it. The author shouldn't be able to hoard it and extort money from people enjoying their book or work of art. So, applying the free software principles to visual art or books... we get something like the CC licenses. This same principle applies to the Ubuntu name and logo.

Queue29
January 7th, 2010, 07:40 PM
Well, I believe in sharing everything.

I share files, I share code, I share what I eat and drink, etc.

From my point of view, it's hypocritical of someone who makes free software, to make the logo which represents that software, not free.

As far as the two things being different, well, I think that since the logo DOES represent the free software, it should be free as well, because it is part of it.
The very fact it represents the free software makes it a part of it.

Will you share with me $50?

phrostbyte
January 7th, 2010, 07:42 PM
Right. My point is that, for software, it makes sense that people should be allowed to change it, and attribution doesn't seem necessary. After all, it's just a tool for practical use. For a logo, a paper, a book, etc that belongs to someone ese, I shouldn't be allowed to change it or claim it as my own. That could potentially hurt them. However, I should be allowed to redistribute and share it. The author shouldn't be able to hoard it and extort money from people enjoying their book or work of art. So, applying the free software principles to visual art or books... we get something like the CC licenses. This same principle applies to the Ubuntu name and logo.

Richard Stallman makes a similar argument in his essay "Copyright vs Community". It's worth a read.

bigbrovar
January 7th, 2010, 07:45 PM
No, because Open Source user != Stallman's follower
We can believe in Open source, and copyright, side by side.
We might believe programs should be openly developed, doesn't mean we believe songs, logos, etc should be free or free to distribute.

Why do you have to bring RMS into this, FYI the FSF and even RMS have said it many times that Free software or GPL can not be applied to artist work. or trade marks, Their stand is on software, and source codes not artwork which is completely different. Ubuntu logo is an artwork which happen to be a trade mark of canonical. The source code of ubuntu is free, the artwork and trade mark are not.

a2z
January 7th, 2010, 07:51 PM
Perhaps the original artist put the tag on it."I designed this for XXX"
Donot copy.

Protection from a consumer stand point is, a few years ago when I was using xp, I wanted to download spybot search and destroy (freeware). I've use it before and liked the program. I did the google search, and clicked on
spybot search and destroy. I was brought to a site that resembeled spybot but looked a litle different. I thought they may have revised/renovated the site. But I was still convinced it was the software I wanted. After downloading it I find it was an imposter!
So I challenge you.... Do the search and see for yourself one benifit of copywrited material.

Eisenwinter
January 7th, 2010, 07:56 PM
Will you share with me $50?
If you needed the money, sure.

Me and my friends share money between us all the time.

I want to buy beer, for example, so my friend gives me a $20 so I can get some bottles.

A week later we go to a restaurant, so I invite him for a small meal, sharing back with him.

ZeroSpawn
January 7th, 2010, 07:57 PM
Can't agree with you on this one. But I do see your point and where you are coming from.

Put yourself in a business that is international recognized and very popular in making a OS. Now think if another company that is just starting out that does not provided the calibre of an OS, and is not international recognized copied your symbol of your OS. Now the masses that followed your OS is now confused and will mistaken use of the wrong product.

Free software is free software. But copying a Business icon, logo, image is different story.

I know when I start my business I'm not going to use Ubuntu, Redhat, or BeOS's logo. It will my own.

Xbehave
January 7th, 2010, 08:00 PM
Trademarks != copyright, I don't think I've ever seen anybody argue against the use of trademarks. Trademarks really do exist to protect consumers and companies.

Copyright is a big mess and well not really relevant because your "hypocrisy" is addressed above, but:
1) not all copyrights are equal, copyrighting a play is very differnt to copyrighting source code, for starters you get fair use on a play (it is very hard to get such fair use rights on software). I think that different feilds deserve copyright duration, the whole point of copyright is so that content producers can get their money back, that obviously will take a different amount of time in a different field.

2)The GPL is more pro-copyright than say BSD,etc and there is again a perceived hypocrisy here. But again the point of the GPL isn't to go just against copyright, it is to help consumers/developers and produce better quality software, in fact many GPL software producers simply see the GPL as a fair copyright license, "show me yours and I'll show you mine" (I think, Linus has stated a few times that Linux isn't GPL for ideology but merely because it's the license that produces the best quality software). So GPL isn't so much about sticking it to the (copyright) man as it is about getting a better deal for the rest of us.

I don't think many people want to see full removal of copyright, even Creative Commons isn't about that (a lot of CC content is CC-NC-..., so money can be made through commercial copyright licensing), but i don't think anybody (except the record labels) thinks the current copyright laws are any good either. Personally I see somewhere in the region of 5-25 years (irrespective of death) as the right length for copyright terms.

NoaHall
January 7th, 2010, 08:00 PM
Why do you have to bring RMS into this, FYI the FSF and even RMS have said it many times that Free software or GPL can not be applied to artist work. or trade marks, Their stand is on software, and source codes not artwork which is completely different. Ubuntu logo is an artwork which happen to be a trade mark of canonical. The source code of ubuntu is free, the artwork and trade mark are not.

Because many of RMS' followers don't believe in copyright :)

Xbehave
January 7th, 2010, 08:03 PM
Because many of RMS' followers don't believe in copyright :)
[citation needed]

Mornedhel
January 7th, 2010, 08:08 PM
Because many of RMS' followers don't believe in copyright :)

Again, that's the general public view of the free software movements, equating foss believers with software "pirates". The people who don't want copyright either don't understand the GPL or don't care about the GPL.

See my earlier post on the first page. There is no hypocrisy here.

Edit: I should be clearer, copyright is seen somewhat as a necessary evil.

doas777
January 7th, 2010, 08:20 PM
Well, I believe in sharing everything.

I share files, I share code, I share what I eat and drink, etc.

From my point of view, it's hypocritical of someone who makes free software, to make the logo which represents that software, not free.

As far as the two things being different, well, I think that since the logo DOES represent the free software, it should be free as well, because it is part of it.
The very fact it represents the free software makes it a part of it.

I agree for the most part, but when I buy a can of pop with the coca cola logo on it, I prefer it to be made by the cocacola company, not the rat poision vendor down the street. this is the basis for Trademark law.

Eisenwinter
January 7th, 2010, 08:22 PM
I agree for the most part, but when I buy a can of pop with the coca cola logo on it, I prefer it to be made by the cocacola company, not the rat poision vendor down the street. this is the basis for Trademark law.
My ideology extends way beyond software, and this is why it cannot exist in current society.

doas777
January 7th, 2010, 08:26 PM
My ideology extends way beyond software, and this is why it cannot exist in current society.

I'm with you there. i don't believe in imaginary property at all. unfourtunatly, the world disagrees, so I have to both spread the word about how evil IP is, and when the occasion arises, use it against others so that they can themselves see the evil. is that hypocrisy, or a clandestine attempt to destoy the system from within?

Xbehave
January 7th, 2010, 08:31 PM
My ideology extends way beyond software, and this is why it cannot exist in current society.
Erm not that it's relevant to the OP, but what do you think is wrong with trademark law? and what would you do if you have the power to remove it?

Techsnap
January 7th, 2010, 08:38 PM
Logo aside here, the main thing that annoys me with the FOSS community [not EVERYONE] if they see anything that barely resembles a logo from a FOSS project, not only will they complain about it but they will go as far as writing threatening letters to these people, that's no way to be and it's certainly not the way it works in the real world, people would loose their jobs for that, and if you do want to be taken seriously why do that!

Then when Microsoft or Apple tries to protect it's IP in the same way it's "terrible they shouldn't do this wa wa wa" Well it's the SAME THING. Just like you getting angry when someone copies a logo from a FOSS project. Also Canonical or whoever would deal with this, not its users. I can understand where the OP is coming from, some of the FOSS community is sure making themselves sound closed minded :P

Eisenwinter
January 7th, 2010, 08:41 PM
Erm not that it's relevant to the OP, but what do you think is wrong with trademark law? and what would you do if you have the power to remove it?
I don't think the trademark law, nowdays, is wrong.

I believe the whole "I own this" approach is wrong from the root.

Like I said, the ideal society for me, cannot exist in the world right now. People are way too greedy.

Imagine if everyone shared everything out of love for each other.
Lets look at Linux.

It is the most successful Free software project ever, and it was all done by sharing something. In this case, code.

If everyone shared their ideas about things, we, as a society, could grow our technological and spiritual insights much faster.


What's not OK is artificial technical, legal, or institutional barriers (like closed-source code) that prevent a good solution from being re-used and force people to re-invent wheels.

I could go on and describe what "my ideal society" means, but most of it is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Chronon
January 7th, 2010, 08:49 PM
Describing your ideal society would also bring you dangerously close to discussing politics.

phrostbyte
January 7th, 2010, 08:52 PM
I don't think the trademark law, nowdays, is wrong.

I believe the whole "I own this" approach is wrong from the root.

Like I said, the ideal society for me, cannot exist in the world right now. People are way too greedy.

Imagine if everyone shared everything out of love for each other.
Lets look at Linux.

It is the most successful Free software project ever, and it was all done by sharing something. In this case, code.

If everyone shared their ideas about things, we, as a society, could grow our technological and spiritual insights much faster.



I could go on and describe what "my ideal society" means, but most of it is completely irrelevant to this thread.

People are too greedy, and sharing is useful. Seems like an impossible problem, but RMS solved it at least partially when he wrote the GPL. The GPL "tricks" people into sharing. Brilliant really.

judge jankum
January 7th, 2010, 08:54 PM
If you have, or invent something even if you want it to stay free it's better to copyright it.
If you don't someone else can and take the freedom out....If Gates could copyright your free software there'd be no free software..

SuperSonic4
January 7th, 2010, 08:59 PM
The GPL itself is copyright, it may call itself copyleft but it acts like a copyright

Chronon
January 7th, 2010, 09:00 PM
The GPL itself is copyright, it may call itself copyleft but it acts like a copyright

Strictly speaking, it's a distribution license applied to a copyrighted work.

Mornedhel
January 7th, 2010, 09:08 PM
Then when Microsoft or Apple tries to protect it's IP in the same way it's "terrible they shouldn't do this wa wa wa" Well it's the SAME THING.

No it's not.

Microsoft or Apple protecting their code, protecting their logos, I'm OK with that. I won't release code under the Microsoft logo without their permission (nor with it, for that matter), that would be akin to identity theft. I can't write random code and pretend it's Windows.

I am not OK with software patents and waving them menacingly towards Linux "hey we can prove Linux stole code from us, but our source is closed so we can't disclose what code exactly, which would be the proof, so watch out Linux because we're only being really nice to you not suing you for unprovable code theft."

I am not OK with changing closed protocols for the heck of it (MSN) so the competitors can't function properly.

I am not OK with ignoring existing standards (OOXML) and pushing their own instead so they can force their own closed implementations on everybody.

I am not OK to having to use specific software (iTunes) to do otherwise really mundane things (copying data to external media).

I am really not OK with other practices (pushing additional software installation disguised as security updates, etc, etc).

The Mozilla foundation placed a trademark on their artwork and prevented Debian from using "Firefox" and the Firefox logo on the Debian release of the Firefox browser. Debian was effectively releasing a different browser (not very different, mind you) under the Firefox name. Mozilla complained (it was a bug report on the Debian tracker, so nothing extreme, either). Debian complied (hence IceWeasel, IceDove and IceApe). That's how it should work.

There are a few GPL'd lines of code somewhere in the Windows utils, and everybody was fine with that *once the copyright was respected and the original author was credited*. That's mostly what the GPL is about: "don't hide the source and pretend you made this".

chucky chuckaluck
January 7th, 2010, 09:11 PM
Well, I believe in sharing everything.

I share files, I share code, I share what I eat and drink, etc.


i'm thinking about changing my username to eisenwinter. ok?

Techsnap
January 7th, 2010, 09:15 PM
I am not OK with software patents and waving them menacingly towards Linux "hey we can prove Linux stole code from us, but our source is closed so we can't disclose what code exactly, which would be the proof, so watch out Linux because we're only being really nice to you not suing you for unprovable code theft."

I am not OK with changing closed protocols for the heck of it (MSN) so the competitors can't function properly.

I am not OK with ignoring existing standards (OOXML) and pushing their own instead so they can force their own closed implementations on everybody.

I am not OK to having to use specific software (iTunes) to do otherwise really mundane things (copying data to external media).

I am really not OK with other practices (pushing additional software installation disguised as security updates, etc, etc).

I don't care what you're not okay with. None of that has got anything to do with when people get funny with them over a logo.

Chris Edgell
January 7th, 2010, 09:15 PM
No, the logo largely defines ubuntu and anything carrying the logo or something similar has the potential to do damage to ubuntu's reputation.

Copyrighting the logo safeguards the users by making them know the ubuntu logo is ubuntu

I think this the the perfect answer -- and for the life of me I can't see why it wasn't pickup up as the perfect answer.

But no, we have to argue the weaker point to keep the argument going. Yes?

doas777
January 7th, 2010, 09:17 PM
Describing your ideal society would also bring you dangerously close to discussing politics.
everything can be politics if you look at it right. since these questions are at the core of OSS, I'd say it's probably appropriate.

blur xc
January 7th, 2010, 09:20 PM
So we all use Free software. Most of us use it because we agree with the ideology (on top of it also satisfying our needs from our computers).

Yesterday there was a thread here about how some company was "infriging copyright" due to them "using the Ubuntu and Debian logos", or at least somewhat "copying the logos".

Why are the logos even copyrighted and trademarked?

Isn't it hypocritical, when someone who supports a big free software project, copyrights a logo which is designed to represent that project?

If the software is free, the logo should be free as well, don't you think?

It's like saying "We support freedom and are against copyright, but only as long as it doesn't affect us".

Do you think this is a hypocritical behaviour?

I certainly do.

EDIT:

Link (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1374198) to the thread in question.

Watch- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNBMdDaYhZA

BM

aysiu
January 7th, 2010, 09:21 PM
I've retitled the thread to more accurately reflect the discussion here.

Chris Edgell
January 7th, 2010, 09:32 PM
I don't really know how "Quoting" works...it skipped over so much I hadn't read and I made my comment; which I think still holds true. However, there were others who didn't get sidetracked.

And then, after all, we get to an old argument based on nothing but idealistic youth. Youth says, "Let's all share everything!" [Usually because they have nothing.] Age says, "GIVE ME MY WALLET!"

"We can share the women, we can share the wine... we can share what you got a' yours, cause we done shared all of mine." Jack Straw of Witchata by the Grateful Dead

Mornedhel
January 7th, 2010, 09:46 PM
I don't care what you're not okay with. None of that has got anything to do with when people get funny with them over a logo.

But those are what people go "wa wa wa" over about Microsoft and Apple, as you so nicely put it. I've never heard *any* FOSS user go "wa wa wa" over the Windows logo or the Apple logo. I don't think anyone serious about FOSS says that using the Microsoft logo for other things is OK (apart from parody uses).

Please provide an example of an open-source organization stating that Microsoft should not defend its logo.

Techsnap
January 7th, 2010, 09:50 PM
I never said Organisation, there's people on this very forum who have many times in the past complained when Apple has defended it's Logo (Among other things).

Mornedhel
January 7th, 2010, 09:52 PM
I never said Organisation, there's people on this very forum who have many times in the past complained when Apple has defended it's Logo (Among other things).

OK, I'll agree with you that those people were in the wrong, if Apple had a reasonable cause to defend its logo.

starcannon
January 7th, 2010, 10:08 PM
So we all use Free software. Most of us use it because we agree with the ideology (on top of it also satisfying our needs from our computers).

Yesterday there was a thread here about how some company was "infriging copyright" due to them "using the Ubuntu and Debian logos", or at least somewhat "copying the logos".

Why are the logos even copyrighted and trademarked?

Isn't it hypocritical, when someone who supports a big free software project, copyrights a logo which is designed to represent that project?

If the software is free, the logo should be free as well, don't you think?

It's like saying "We support freedom and are against copyright, but only as long as it doesn't affect us".

Do you think this is a hypocritical behaviour?

I certainly do.

EDIT:

Link (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1374198) to the thread in question.

Well if EVERYTHING should be free as in beer, and free as in speech; then it may behoove one to lead by example. Remove the locks from your doors, leave the keys in your car, and make photo copies your debit card and include a pin (money wants to be free). As you can see, any philosophy taken too far, becomes ludicrous. Brand protection is completely fine when one takes time to get a little perspective on things.

Mornedhel
January 7th, 2010, 10:22 PM
It's about recognition and due attribution of merits. Even in an utopian world with no class, no money, and no property, you will need some way of attributing the merit of the creation of something, even if that something is later freely shared among all members of the society.

You also need not to have people pretend they're acting on behalf of someone else. I don't want people publishing scientific results under my name no more than I want to be able to publish someone else's scientific results under my name. I want everyone to be clear on whose results they are, even if once published everyone may freely access them, modify them, build on them, and derive their own results from them.

A world with no property and no attribution is by far harder to achieve than "simply" a world with no property. Even if the result of your work is shared with everyone, it's plain wrong for someone else to pretend it's their own work.

Chris Edgell
January 8th, 2010, 12:03 AM
So, Eisenwinter,

Did you like my view and the many views here? You ARE young, aren't you? I'm old! I was thinking like you to some degree when I was loosed upon the world. Time can do so much. Here's hoping you are of a mind that you can let some light in; even when you hold a strong opinion...if you seek larger mind, you can make it a habit to let other mind in.

Here's hoping you enjoyed my remarks, rather than taking offense...(ageism); did you?

Is it to far along for me to wish you a great new year!
Christine

koenn
January 8th, 2010, 12:09 AM
i'm thinking about changing my username to eisenwinter. ok?
this - that's what it's about.
names, logo''s, ... is how an organisation ( a project, a group, a coorporation) identifies itself - it uses these marks to say "we made this".
This works 2 ways :

- "if it has our mark, you can be sure we made it (and you know what to expect from it)" => noone is allowed to use our trademarks without our permission

- "we made this and we won't let anyone else take credit for it" => You can not remove our marks from this product or replace it with a mark of your own.

So I see no problem whatsoever, no inconsistency at all between free software and trademarks. On the contrary, there's a long tradition in free software if acknowledging contributions and giving credit where it's due. Trademarks somehow seem to fit in.

Chilli Bob
January 8th, 2010, 12:50 AM
From my point of view, it's hypocritical of someone who makes free software, to make the logo which represents that software, not free.




Ok, I don't have time to read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been said....

By your policy, would you say it is OK for me to take base Ubuntu, modify it by including a keylogger that sends me all your credit card details, then re-releasing it with the original Ubuntu logos and name?

Of course not. That is why the logo is copyright. It gives Canonical the right to ensure that anything be distributed as Ubuntu (or a close facsimile of) is the REAL thing.

Long live copyright!

Methuselah
January 8th, 2010, 02:02 AM
Ok, I don't have time to read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been said....

By your policy, would you say it is OK for me to take base Ubuntu, modify it by including a keylogger that sends me all your credit card details, then re-releasing it with the original Ubuntu logos and name?

Of course not. That is why the logo is copyright. It gives Canonical the right to ensure that anything be distributed as Ubuntu (or a close facsimile of) is the REAL thing.

Long live copyright!

Well said.
Sometimes it takes a drastic example to bring home a point.

user1397
January 8th, 2010, 02:29 AM
So we all use Free software. Most of us use it because we agree with the ideology (on top of it also satisfying our needs from our computers).

Yesterday there was a thread here about how some company was "infriging copyright" due to them "using the Ubuntu and Debian logos", or at least somewhat "copying the logos".

Why are the logos even copyrighted and trademarked?

Isn't it hypocritical, when someone who supports a big free software project, copyrights a logo which is designed to represent that project?

If the software is free, the logo should be free as well, don't you think?

It's like saying "We support freedom and are against copyright, but only as long as it doesn't affect us".

Do you think this is a hypocritical behaviour?

I certainly do.

EDIT:

Link (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1374198) to the thread in question.This is such a great area that it's not even funny.

There are people like RMS who are borderline commies when it comes to software and copyrights, then several degrees between that and people who think the two can co-exist, and yet again several levels between that and people who think open source is a ridiculous idea and all software should be proprietary and closed-source.

As to your question, I think that copyrighting a logo is just a way to safeguard that company against fraud and to let it have recognition, nothing else.

Eisenwinter
January 8th, 2010, 08:08 AM
So, Eisenwinter,

Did you like my view and the many views here? You ARE young, aren't you? I'm old! I was thinking like you to some degree when I was loosed upon the world. Time can do so much. Here's hoping you are of a mind that you can let some light in; even when you hold a strong opinion...if you seek larger mind, you can make it a habit to let other mind in.

Here's hoping you enjoyed my remarks, rather than taking offense...(ageism); did you?

Is it to far along for me to wish you a great new year!
Christine

I'm 21, and willing to explore the "one within". I do gratefully accept knowledge from the "more experienced ones", so yes, I thank you for that.


By your policy, would you say it is OK for me to take base Ubuntu, modify it by including a keylogger that sends me all your credit card details, then re-releasing it with the original Ubuntu logos and name?

Whether it is alright to do so? Yes. But a person who truly understands that this will hurt others, will not do it.

I won't do it, because I understand I can harm other people, I can violate their privacy if I do that, so I won't.

bigbrovar
January 8th, 2010, 08:19 AM
Because many of RMS' followers don't believe in copyright :)
Again another misguided view of the issues, FYI GPL its self is a copyright.

starcannon
January 8th, 2010, 08:48 AM
It's about recognition and due attribution of merits. Even in an utopian world with no class, no money, and no property, you will need some way of attributing the merit of the creation of something, even if that something is later freely shared among all members of the society.

You also need not to have people pretend they're acting on behalf of someone else. I don't want people publishing scientific results under my name no more than I want to be able to publish someone else's scientific results under my name. I want everyone to be clear on whose results they are, even if once published everyone may freely access them, modify them, build on them, and derive their own results from them.

A world with no property and no attribution is by far harder to achieve than "simply" a world with no property. Even if the result of your work is shared with everyone, it's plain wrong for someone else to pretend it's their own work.
^
This.
+1
Yep.
Also this:

FYI GPL its self is a copyright.

lukeiamyourfather
January 8th, 2010, 08:56 AM
Open source software license and a trademark have nothing to do with one another. Canonical runs a business, and Ubuntu is their product (even though its open source). If someone uses the Ubuntu logo for something that is not official then it could potentially damage the reputation of Ubuntu and is not endorsed by Ubuntu and Canonical. In other words just because something is open source doesn't mean everyone owns it and can do whatever they want with it.

Take Red Hat and CentOS as an example. Even though CentOS is just Red Hat Enterprise Linux without the branding they still can't call it anything Red Hat because its a trademark that belongs to Red Hat. Sure the source is there, but Red Hat owns the trademark Red Hat Enterprise Linux so the CentOS project has to call it something else and use a different logo.

Chilli Bob
January 8th, 2010, 09:25 AM
But a person who truly understands that this will hurt others, will not do it.



The entire world of crime is based on knowingly hurting others, and there is certainly no shortage of crime.

I admire your basis of your philosphy, but it will get you eaten alive in the real world.

caravel
January 8th, 2010, 09:47 AM
And then, after all, we get to an old argument based on nothing but idealistic youth. Youth says, "Let's all share everything!" [Usually because they have nothing.] Age says, "GIVE ME MY WALLET!"
Age can also lead to short sightedness, cynicism, condescension and generalisations.

Personally I agree with the OP. Trademarks etc, actually protect the interests of companies, not the consumer. Trademarking logos for software that is Open Source does seem unnecessary to me.

Chris Edgell
January 8th, 2010, 03:07 PM
Age can also lead to short sightedness, cynicism, condescension and generalisations.

Personally I agree with the OP. Trademarks etc, actually protect the interests of companies, not the consumer. Trademarking logos for software that is Open Source does seem unnecessary to me.

You forgot to slam the door.

But actually, I am sorry if I came off that way. I meant to be kind, I reread my posts and they do seem a little condescending to youth. But I was sincere. (How old are you?)

staf0048
January 8th, 2010, 07:15 PM
You forgot to slam the door.

But actually, I am sorry if I came off that way. I meant to be kind, I reread my posts and they do seem a little condescending to youth. But I was sincere. (How old are you?)

Ideology is good. It can change the world for the better. Without it, we're left with the status quo. It's no surprise that YOUTH is often involved in making change, while AGE can give a much needed perception and speak from experience.

By the by, for what it's worth, I'm 31 and agree with trademark law as our world is now. Although I also find it unfortuneate that it has to be there in the first place.

aaaantoine
January 8th, 2010, 07:40 PM
But a person who truly understands that this will hurt others, will not do it.

This is a fundamental issue as old as civilization.

Just because you won't do it, knowing the circumstances, doesn't mean others won't do it. People murder other people, knowing full well that by doing so, the other person will be gone forever.

Trademark law exists because people will steal brand names for their own gain, and the original brand maker's loss, and possibly even the consumer's loss.

Greed, again, is older than civilization. It will never, truly and completely, go away.

ZeroSpawn
January 8th, 2010, 09:15 PM
Whether it is alright to do so? Yes. But a person who truly understands that this will hurt others, will not do it.

I won't do it, because I understand I can harm other people, I can violate their privacy if I do that, so I won't.
Thats great you don't want to hurt anyone. But there are alot of people in the world that don't care if they hurt other people, thus we need some type of protection against these people. The world isn't full of candy and happiness, once you get to know it you will be surprised.

Also a moderator changed the name of this thread because it has gotten off the subject. So I don't know what point is being stated here.

Chris Edgell
January 8th, 2010, 10:25 PM
What WAS the original name of this thread? (How soon we forget)

ve4cib
January 8th, 2010, 10:41 PM
People murder other people, knowing full well that by doing so, the other person will be gone forever.

That's only if they subscribe to the belief that they existed in the first place. Maybe the nihilists are right, and no one ever actually existed. I'm not condoning murder or anything, but if you honestly believe that the person you are killing does not exist and then consequences have no meaning.

Just because you know the consequences of something (or believe you do at any rate) does not mean that other people will believe in the same consequences. And even if they do believe in the same consequences there's no telling whether or not they'll actually care if those consequences come to pass.


Personally I see nothing wrong with putting trademarks on open-source projects. If nothing else it prevents confusion stemming from changes made to the code. It's basically like saying "Official versions of this product, supported by the original author carry this trademark. All other versions, which may contain third-party modifications, may not use the original trademark unless permission is granted by the original authors." You're free to use the code all you want, you just can't put the original author's signature (trademark) on it.

For example, imagine if someone took the code for VLC, added a bunch of bugs (intentional or not), called it VLC and kept the traffic cone icon. This person then starts distributing his modified VLC binaries to friends, family, and the public at large. They encounter bugs. Then they file bug reports with the official VLC devs, who are suddenly expected to support bugs in code they never wrote, and people believe that VLC is a bug-ridden program with inept developers who don't know their own code. Not exactly a good situation for anyone, is it?

Now, I realize that's a contrived example. Heck, I don't even know if "VLC" and the traffic cone emblem are even trademarks of VideoLan. But hopefully you can see my point anyway.

staf0048
January 9th, 2010, 12:25 AM
I'm not condoning murder or anything, but if you honestly believe that the person you are killing does not exist and then consequences have no meaning.


I realize the above quote is quite selective of me, but if you truly beleived the person didn't exist, why would you kill them in the first place? If they were not there, you would not know of them.

Chronon
January 9th, 2010, 03:05 AM
Age can also lead to short sightedness, cynicism, condescension and generalisations.

Personally I agree with the OP. Trademarks etc, actually protect the interests of companies, not the consumer. Trademarking logos for software that is Open Source does seem unnecessary to me.

The protection runs both ways. . . or don't you think that malware masquerading as someone else's legitimate work poses a problem for the consumer/user?

staf0048
January 9th, 2010, 06:05 AM
I ran across a real world example of this tonight on my commute home from work. It's got nothing to do with software, but I think it fits nicely in with the conversation.

There is a major college in my metro area that has trademarked the words "Sun Devil". You may have heard of them. Anyway, many companies around here use "Sun Devil" in their names, for example Sun Devil Auto, Sun Devil Manufacturing, Sun Devil DVD...you get the idea. Whenever I come across another "Sun Devil" business, I think "Man, can't you be more creative?" They are obviously playing off of the popularity of the college and especially the sports teams to drive business.

Well, one of these companies has decided it would be a good idea to name a beer after the college, I believe it's called Sun Devil Ale. Apparently the college is upset about this and has threatened to sue the company producing the beer because it infringes on their trademark...but no one else is even though (from what I understand) all these other companies have not asked for permission. The college can be selective (as is it's right) on who it does or does not allow to ride on it's coat tails, so to speak.

So where does this leave us? It's ok to use the work of others and modify them for your own purposes for your own benefit, even in trademark land. However, if you're going to use it, it's probably best to ask first. Just like the borrowing of $50 discussion. There's a big difference between asking to borrow $50 and stealing $50.

Groucho Marxist
January 9th, 2010, 06:26 AM
So we all use Free software. Most of us use it because we agree with the ideology (on top of it also satisfying our needs from our computers).

Yesterday there was a thread here about how some company was "infriging copyright" due to them "using the Ubuntu and Debian logos", or at least somewhat "copying the logos".

Why are the logos even copyrighted and trademarked?


Without delving deeply into the intricacies of US or international law, it comes down to two elements; Property rights (ownership) and brand-imaging. To put it another way, you wouldn't want anyone to deny you the ability to earn an income off of the fruits of your labors, nor would you wish for a rival company to misuse a symbol which stands to represent you or your product.


Isn't it hypocritical, when someone who supports a big free software project, copyrights a logo which is designed to represent that project?

If the software is free, the logo should be free as well, don't you think?

It's like saying "We support freedom and are against copyright, but only as long as it doesn't affect us".

Do you think this is a hypocritical behaviour?

I certainly do.


I disagree. If I may make an historical analogy, copyrighted imagery serves the same purpose as battle standards did in the American Civil War. Both are designed to visually represent ideas, people, places or goals and need to be clear lest they cause confusion or disaster (see First Manassas, or the case of Apple records and Apple computers).

When I see the Debian logo, for example, on the aforesaid website, I know that the work and subsequent information contained therein are all from an official entity. The projects may be open-source, but they gather around a single image (or, to reference the Civil War, a battle standard) as a statement of literal/figurative ownership, respectively.

Chilli Bob
January 9th, 2010, 08:35 AM
Well, one of these companies has decided it would be a good idea to name a beer after the college, I believe it's called Sun Devil Ale. Apparently the college is upset about this and has threatened to sue the company producing the beer because it infringes on their trademark...but no one else is even though (from what I understand) all these other companies have not asked for permission. The college can be selective (as is it's right) on who it does or does not allow to ride on it's coat tails, so to speak.



Which brings up am important point. Trademark owners are required to actively protect their trademark in order too keep it. That is why companies like Xerox and Hoover actively pursue people who use their names as generic terms (for photocopiers and vacuum cleaners) in print. If they start letting people use them willy-nilly, then it lessens the brand value and it can be argued that anyone can use the term, as the company was not interested in keeping it as a trademark. It sounds like the Sun Devil Ale company may be able to try this defence if they get sued.

Anyway, that is why some companies go after people who abuse their trademark.

(Disclaimer: I got this information documentory discussing this principle in which an evil American clothing chain attempted to prevent Australian companies selling sheepskin boots using the term "Ugg", despite this being a generic term since WW2. It seems someone "registered" the trademark some time in the 1970s and sold it to the American company in the 2000s. Because the guy who registered it did not actuvely try to protect the trademark over the interviening 30 years, it was deemed to have lapsed)

P.S. Typed this in a real hurry, sorry if it doesn't read well.

staf0048
January 9th, 2010, 03:34 PM
It sounds like the Sun Devil Ale company may be able to try this defence if they get sued.

Yes, this was actually one of the points brought up in the report. The term "Sun Devil" is so widely used throughout the community that this company may have a case, even though the term is trademarked.