Logo licenses (was Re: [Actionchix] Final versions of robotux are here!)

[Mary Gardiner]

On Tue, Apr 04, 2006, Val Henson wrote:
> Here's what I want:
> 
> I want the web site redesign coordinator (Mary) to tell me what
> license to release the logos under - or to delegate the research and
> decision to someone else qualified.  Anyone contributing another logo
> needs to also release the logo under the license-of-choice if they
> want it to go on the LinuxChix web site.  I honestly don't care what
> the license is; I just don't want to figure it out for myself. :)

I need a bit more input from folks with legal thoughts. What we want:

 1. for us to be able to use it and modify it in perpetuity, where us is
    the nebulous group of people called "LinuxChix"
 2. for groups approved by us (chapters) to be able to use it and modify
    it in perpetuity
 3. for us to be able to prevent other groups trying to confuse
    themselves with us, by using our name or our logo or close variations
    thereon

However, I'm less certain that a restrictive licence on the logo will
achieve #3. For starters, it only gives us restitution under copyright
law, and since the harm would not be commerical -- ie no lost revenue to
point to -- it's actually not far off meaningless. What would be better:

 1. a restrictive licence alone
 2. a restrictive licence plus the existing US trademark on "Linux"
 3. a restrictive licence plus a trademark (I don't know about "service
    marks", because they don't exist in Austalia) on the words
    "LinuxChix" and on the logo?
 4. a open licence alone
 5. a open licence plus the existing US trademark on "Linux"
 6. a open licence plus a trademark on the words "LinuxChix" and on the
    logo?

I'd especially like discussion with reference to what the Linux
distributions do.

Keep in mind that it may not be possible for us to get a trademark
because "Linux" is already trademarked in some countries and is
considered generic in others (eg Australia). Can a name based on either
a trademark or a legally recognised generic term *be* itself
trademarked.

What would probably be most appreciated at this point would be someone
consulting an IP lawyer actually, but I doubt this will happen.

-Mary