[Ubuntu-SG] Ubuntu SG logo

[Rui Boon]

Muhammad Heidir wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The brochures and posters that I got for the team are all licensed
> under Creative Commons. They are obtained from Ubuntu-UK, Ubuntu-ID
> and Hannes Pasqualini <http://www.gasteropodica.net>
>
> In the case of our logo, it is better if we restrict it. Since it is
> about our trademark and organization identity, we should protect it.
> I'm not sure about legal stuff, in my opinion, its use is not
> restricted, but any modification is not allowed.
>
> And to add to this point, if the logo is finalised and given thumbs up
> by our community, we should verify any issues with Ubuntu(Canonical).
> Either Billy or Chew will submit to them for processing.
>
> These are my personal opinions. What do the rest of the community think?
>
> Regards,
> Heidir

Personally, I would suggest this license: CC BY-NC-ND

Rationale:
BY - Gives attribution to the authors of the logo. This is our way of
thanking them for creating this wonderful logo
NC (No Commercial) - Usage of the logo that is linked to commercial
activity is not allowed. This prevents profit-minded companies from
impersonating us. Also, this prevents the notion that ubuntu-sg is
endorsing/supporting their products. Moreover, if there is a need for
commercial usage, we, as the licensor, can waive this requirement upon
evaluation.
ND (No derivative) - The logo shall remain in its original form, i.e. no
modification is allowed. As pointed our by Heidir, we should protect our
identity.

There, however, seems to be a legal issue if the logo is not considered
as an original work. The problem is that the ubuntu logos are licensed
under CC-by-sa. This means that any alteration to their logos has to be
released under the same license.

== from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the
terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with
the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons
jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that
contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g.,
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons Compatible License
==

I believe that there is some attempts in contacting Canonical regarding
the trademarks. How is the progress so far?


Cheers

Rui Boon