Hot answers tagged

10

Logos are a special case that reside in the creative domain covered by copyright, and the domain of trademarks related to identity. The logo itself, the style, colour, etc are usually a result of a creative process. This is usually what you can copyright. The logo denominating your product, company, etc, is what you can trademark. So to prevent someone from ...


8

Assuming you've submitted the logo as a typical inbound=outbound contribution, you still own the copyright on the logo, but you may not forbid anyone else from from using the logo on copyright grounds, due to the permissive copyright grant you made via the MIT license. Effectively, the exclusive rights that copyright law granted to you to reproduce and ...


7

It is quite common for commercial open source projects to trademark their name, logo and corporate design. As a result, any forks can use the sourcecode, but must use a different name. This is the reason why Debian-based Linux distributions usually come with a web browser called "Iceweasel" which is essentially Mozilla Firefox. But when you don't trademark ...


7

This question is probably off-topic because it's really not about copyright, let alone open source. However, the reason why deserves an explanation. First, a quick primer: copyright and trademarks are different types of IP. Copyright protects creative works, and trademarks protect brand identities. Logos, being simple and recognisable, can sometimes be so ...


6

From looking at the source code, most of R itself (vs the various packages) is licensed under one or other GPL variant. Certainly the logo file does not seem to have a specific license associated with it. This question has actually been addressed in one of the R mail lists Jan Wijffels wrote: Hi, I was wondering if there are any ...


5

When you explicitly want to exclude your logo from the license, you can write so in the copyright file. It's also not uncommon for larger open source projects to trademark their logos and names. This is not completely uncontroversial in the open source community (it's why Debian is shipped with "Iceweasel" and not "Firefox") but still quite common. While ...


3

I'm not a lawyer, and it might be best to consult with your company's legal department (if they have one) about this before releasing the project. If your company's logo is a registered trademark, I don't think there is a lot to worry about. A good practice would be to explicitly state in the LICENSE or COPYING file that the logo is a registered trademark ...


3

No, there are no open source licenses that require contribution before you can use the project. One of the most fundamental principles of open source software is that users of an open source project have the right to distribute the project further, with or without modification. This right does not play well with a requirement to contribute back to the ...


2

You most likely want to use a rather permissive licence for your logo, and handle the rest through trademark law. If things go well, your logo is going to be used in various places to refer to your project, and the licence needs to allow that. Technically, a print magazine writing about your project and using the logo is a derivative work, even if your "...


2

I believe it would be a really bad idea. You want to have complete (legal) control over the image of your organization, not have anybody being able to use it legally (share alike or weaker rights) or take it, deface it and use it to disparage you.


2

Google isn't very clear on this issue, but their Permissions page does say: All of our brand features are protected by applicable trademark, copyright and other intellectual property laws. If you would like to use any of our brand features on your website, in an ad, in an article or book, or reproduce them anywhere else, or in any other medium, you'll ...


1

It is somewhat common for project to handle graphical assets and code differently, and you can release your code under the MIT licence, but not your logo. It's important to differentiate between copyright and trademark. Both are forms of intellectual property Copyright protects the artistic expression of a work. Trademark protects the association of ...


1

I'm no lawyer, and don't even play one on TV. That said... The license on the logo as an image is one thing (e.g., do you allow others to take it and modify it for some other uses), and the use of said logo as a symbol for your project are two different things in my (ignorant) opinion. Clarify what you want in both lines. Check similar cases, e.g the logos ...


1

Yes and no: In most cases yes, your logo is covered under that permissive license, but also no, you still (may) retain trademark rights for use of that logo in conjunction with your software product. Trademarks != copyright, and most open source licenses are only copyright licenses. The Apache License 2.0 is the clearest license, because it makes explicit ...


1

From OSI FAQ:- Does Open Source mean anybody else can use my name and logo? No, at least not any more than they could otherwise. Open Source is about software source code, not about identity. That is, letting people use your code under an Open Source license is not the same as letting them use your trademarks or other identifying attributes, except insofar ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible