spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: LOGO discussion from spf-private

2006-06-15 03:48:05
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The background to this thread is:  someone made a confidential request 
through the contact form, wanting to know if he could use the SPF logo in 
his commercial product, and I initiated discussion about it on spf-private 
before giving that person an answer.  (I probably should have gone to the 
effort of anonymizing his message and going to spf-discuss right away 
instead.  Oh well, there it is...)

Wayne Schlitt wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote:
However as far as the SPF logo is concerned, to my knowledge it was
never discussed whether it should be free for use by everybody, so
I guess the council will have to set precedence on that.  What do
you think about it?

I did some research into this.

First off, Meng released the old website into the GFDL license.  That
appears to include logos.

The closest I can find for statement about licensing or restrictions
was when Meng posted:
[...]

I think it is a little late to be putting any restrictions on that
logo.

When Stuart carried the topic to spf-discuss, he based his forwarding on a 
message that only contained part of my original spf-private posting.  
Here's the full context:

Julian Mehnle wrote:
However as far as the SPF logo is concerned, to my knowledge it was
never discussed whether it should be free for use by everybody, so I
guess the council will have to set precedence on that.  What do you
think about it?

Personally I think that it _might_ be a good idea to require some sort
of compliance test in order to use the logo, but that would be something
we haven't done before, and I'm pretty sure that others out there are
using the SPF logo without having undergone any kind of compliance test.

So I guess I agree with Wayne that (while some sort of restriction might 
have made sense in 2003/2004) it is too late now to restrict the use of 
the logo beyond the GFDL.

Does anyone think we should introduce a (however slight) restriction 
nonetheless?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEkTqwwL7PKlBZWjsRAvzGAJ0dCKVc6wkUpRNibHydpf+R4+/zOwCgo3Mj
FeRxX3IC05C5+f5X/KFyPNE=
=seSS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>