Re: License of W3C icons


On 5 May 2014, at 10:09, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:
> Note that for example the HTML5 logo has a more permissive license.
> http://www.w3.org/html/logo/faq.html#how-licenced

The terms around this HTML logo are an interesting precedent. Let’s remember that the situation with the “valid” logos are essentially a (clumsy, in my opinion, which in truth is not worth much… I Am Not A Lawyer) way for the W3C to protect its trademark - of which the W3C logo is an integral part - through copyright enforcement. Note that it isn’t a gratuitous nasty move by W3C: by law they have to protect their trademark, or lose it.

The fact that the HTML5 logo - which includes the W3C logo - can be distributed under permissive terms may point to a change of approach in the protection of the W3C trademark. I don’t know. W3C’s counsel may. 

But to get back to the issue at hand, Dimitri: what’s wrong with distributing the validator with an alternate set of icons, one that would not include the W3C logo-mark? I seem to recall we did just that, all those years ago, and it might actually have been for Debian… 


HTH,
-- 
Olivier

-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and 
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in 
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the 
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender 
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails 
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to 
this.
-----------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2014 20:44:06 UTC