[arch-dev-public] [draft] - Arch Linux Logo Competition Announcement

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Mon Oct 22 23:13:04 EDT 2007

On 10/22/07, Travis Willard <travis at archlinux.org> wrote:
> 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.
> Help?

I think the quickest thing to do, for right now, is to pass on all
rights to me - that is, assuming everyone trusts me. I'm looking into
what it means to make Arch a fully legal entity when it comes to this
stuff, but for now the best idea might be to pass rights on to me, in
the same way that Judd used to own some of this stuff.

>From there, when things are decided and I fully grasp the legal stuff
here, I will give all rights to the new "ArchLinux" entity. But I
can't predict how long that'd take.

Would anyone have a problem with this? I'm more trying to
short-circuit this here, so we can get the context underway.

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list