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

[Simo Leone]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:13:04PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> 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.
> 
This was the "Easy Way Out" (tm) that I had in mind. We can figure out
the details later, but for now this is the simplest (and the one i'm
most sure of) way to do things.

-S
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20071022/b0d87c24/attachment.pgp>