[arch-dev-public] [draft] - Arch Linux Logo Competition Announcement
travis at archlinux.org
Mon Oct 22 22:50:24 EDT 2007
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:02:38 -0500
Simo Leone <simo at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 11:21:46PM -0400, Travis Willard wrote:
> > . Anyone can submit as many logo concepts as they wish
> > . Entry is freeform, with no need to base it on current logo. Be
> > creative!
> > . All entries will become property of Arch Linux. Once the winning
> > entry has been chosen, we will return rights of all other logos to
> > their original authors, however the winning logo will remain
> > property of Arch.
> > Arch will retain all the rights of the winning logo, and will
> > properly credit the winning author in all appropriate ways. We
> > will want to use the logo for additional media - CD labels or
> > wallpapers, for example. The winning author, should they so desire,
> > may create this additional media at this point for Arch's use.
> > Should they decline to create this additional media, the developers
> > will have it created by another willing volunteer.
> Ok, well I'm not a lawyer but I don't think either of these conditions
> would hold a drop of water in court. Why? Because the entries are
> becoming property of 'arch linux', which is not an entity. In order to
> own property, or rights, or whatever, you have to be a legal entity,
> whether that's a person, a corporation, or whatever. So basically
> you're saying something that doesn't exist will become the owner of
> the rights :-/
> Some quickie things that come to mind would be stipulating a license
> that would let us *use* the logo (although that's not desirable, we've
> already seen why we need to *OWN* it), or say that the rights become
> the property of some entity we trust *glances at Aaron*. But again,
> I'm not lawyer so I have no idea.
> Paul, is there a chance you could give us some insight on how best to
> handle this?
Hm, yes, I agree with what you have to say here - there was a bit of a
discussion on the forums about this passage too. To be totally honest,
I was winging it, trying to come up with something that both suited the
best interests of Arch but also credited the original author, however
I'm generally clueless about licensing - I try reading up on them as
well, but it just flies over my head, try as I might.
I think before we can do this contest we really need the input of
someone who really KNOWS licensing - someone on the forum who
apparently practices law in Belgium suggested Creative Commons as a
suitable license for this - but again, I have no clue.
More information about the arch-dev-public