Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GPLLinksysLogo.png
(Old request reopened today)
Info Logo with ® Linksys, a division of Cisco. This logo comes from a software which is GPL licenced, but the licence of the logo is unclear. Yann 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. At the time I downloaded it, the GPL Licensing center at http://www.linksys.com/gpl/ stated that the file was provided under the GPL. I left detailed instructions on how the image was extracted from one of their gzipped tarballs. Later on, the wording on the GPL code center was probably changed to state that the files are "under one or more open source licenses" to allow for source code that is under other open licenses like the MPL license. Jesse Viviano 17:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I created a newer proof because the old notice at the top of the Linksys GPL code center has been changed. It is below:
- Converted from a GPL'd GIF image. To get the original GIF image, go to http://www.linksys.com/download/. This will redirect you to a dynamically generated URL, which will change every time you access any page on Linksys's website and therefore should not be copied here because it might not work the next time. Type in "WRT54GL" in the search field. Select Version 1.0 in the combo box under "Locate Version Number". You will notice that the current firmware revision is 4.30.9. Follow the hyperlink that states "Click here to view GPL Code". This is the proof that the file for the 4.30.9 firmware is under the GPL. Then look for WRT54GL under product name. Download WRT54GL_v4.30.9_US.tgz, which is a 179 MB file. Gunzip it into a 705 MB tarball. Untar the resulting tarball. It will generate a directory named WRT54GL_4_30_9_1101_US, which might be found in the directory WRT54GL_v4.30.9_US or not depending on what program you used to untar the tarball. Go to WRT54GL_4_30_9_1101_US/release/src/router/www/cisco_wrt54g_m/image, and the logo will be contained in the file UI_Linksys.gif.
- Jesse Viviano 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I created a newer proof because the old notice at the top of the Linksys GPL code center has been changed. It is below:
- Keep not copyrighted. --Rtc 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, some creativity was used to create this logo, so it is copyrighted. However, Linksys licensed it under the GPL. Jesse Viviano 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is clearly not enough creativity for copyright protection for something that is applied art. Applied art can be protected by copyright only under rare circumstances. That is so because these things can already be protected by design law and it costs money to register them, so a copyright protection would make it possible to circumvent this fee. Please also read w:Wikipedia:Public Domain#Fonts --Rtc 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, some creativity was used to create this logo, so it is copyrighted. However, Linksys licensed it under the GPL. Jesse Viviano 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Dodo 09:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. If it truly was included in GPL software, then it is free: for discussion of trademarks that have been licensed in GPL software, see [1], [2], [3]. It is still subject to the usual trademark protection however. en:user:Nadav1 70.21.22.27 09:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep if it's under the GPL. PatríciaR msg 13:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
(Old discussion ends here and the new discussion follows:)
The Linksys Logo is copyright by Linksys® and Cisco Systems Inc.®; it never released under the GPL. It can be inferred from the usage of "®" in the logo (which explicitly means that it is a registered trademark) that it is not GPL. The GPL software code it is found with does not necessarily change the logo's status to be free as well. No written proof from Linksys has ever been given which says the logo itself is GPL. (And if this logo is GPL, all Linksys logos are GPL, since they differ in color only; this has never been confirmed by Linksys, who only say their content is copyright.) An SVG version of this logo (with more suitable colors) is also available on Wikipedia with an appropriate fare use rational. You can't just claim a registered trademark is GPL simply because the company's software is. Althepal 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- (R) does not mean that is coparighted, that is (c) sign but that it is registered trademark. However, we treat copyright here not trademark issues. That is why we have {{Trademarked}}. --ALE! ¿…? 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Linksys owns the copyright to all their material. Logos and other works do not require the © symbol to be copyright, yet Linksys does mention copyright on their website and with their software. The logo itself, however, does contain ®, which means it is a registered trademark. I don't buy the claim that GPL code makes the logo of the company as GPL. Althepal 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- You know, I personally tried contacting Linksys to get a statement one way or the other at both pr@linksys.com (email address didn't work) and at linksys-opensource@linksys.com (no reply) without success. Someone who wants to make this claim should certainly call them or email them before making the assertion. I'm confused as to why it is almost a given at the Commons that the Linksys logo is GPL. Althepal 22:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you GPL an item, you still own the copyright on it. You just gave permission to others to use it freely under the GPL's terms. Jesse Viviano 22:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- While this is true, it doesn't apply.: I quoted below where Linksys says that all content on their website, including their trademarks are copyright and may not be used without explicit written permission from Linksys. Althepal 05:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Linksys owns the copyright to all their material. Logos and other works do not require the © symbol to be copyright, yet Linksys does mention copyright on their website and with their software. The logo itself, however, does contain ®, which means it is a registered trademark. I don't buy the claim that GPL code makes the logo of the company as GPL. Althepal 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- The SVG version of the logo is subtly different to the real Linksys logo on their boxes. Also, it has no source. Third, SVGs are not allowed for fair use images on the English Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 22:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I recently updated the SVG version; I got it from brandsoftheword.com (soucred), and it is no longer different from the actual logo. Fair use svgs are allowed on Wikipedia, as is noted on the image's page.. Althepal 04:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agree to ALE! - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? Fair use is not allowed on the Commons, and there is no proof that this is GPL, not even an effort by anyone (except myself) to get a written statement from Linksys. Just because someone CLAIMS that it is GPL with some illogic and irrelivent "proof", therefore that is accepted and NO ONE is allowed to change that claim. Yeah, right. If no one can make a real argument or bring a real source that says the Linksys logo is GPL (aside from some of the the company's software happening to be GPL), how on Earth is that accepted as default? Althepal 04:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I already proved that this was released under the GPL. Therefore, this image is freely licensed under the GPL. Jesse Viviano 22:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are more reasons that this can be considered GPL. The GPL is an all-or-nothing deal. You can only distribute something under the GPL if it is comprised entirely of GPL-compatiable parts. Since the firmware is built with GPL components from both the Linux kernel and the GNU operating system, everything must be licensed under the GPL. Also, the firmware's source code package includes the images so that one can build the firmware with the included Makefile and have everything turn out right. Jesse Viviano 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't buy it. An example of something which is not all or nothing is Wikipedia; it is GPL, yet includes non-GPL images. Firmware which is GPL can be packaged with logos under a different license. Get a written statement from Linksys if you're so sure, but don't make claims about the logo of a company being free. Althepal 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia distributes its text under the GFDL, not the GPL. Interestingly, the only reasoning for allowing non-GPL images in Wikipedia at w:Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Copyleft licenses that I could find could be called suspect. The reasoning is that only the pointer is GFDL'd, and that the image is called up by the MediaWiki software when interpreting the code. Can someone please clarify why this is allowed? Jesse Viviano 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry about the confusion on this point. Althepal 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia distributes its text under the GFDL, not the GPL. Interestingly, the only reasoning for allowing non-GPL images in Wikipedia at w:Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Copyleft licenses that I could find could be called suspect. The reasoning is that only the pointer is GFDL'd, and that the image is called up by the MediaWiki software when interpreting the code. Can someone please clarify why this is allowed? Jesse Viviano 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't buy it. An example of something which is not all or nothing is Wikipedia; it is GPL, yet includes non-GPL images. Firmware which is GPL can be packaged with logos under a different license. Get a written statement from Linksys if you're so sure, but don't make claims about the logo of a company being free. Althepal 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Here is another proof. Please see this old page from the Internet Wayback Machine. It states this: "The files available on this page have been provided under the GNU General Public License (GPL)." I could have finished this business if I had thought about the Wayback Machine a long time ago. Since I extracted the image from the file
WRT54GL-US_v4.30.7.tgz
which is on this page, this proof is valid. Jesse Viviano 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are more reasons that this can be considered GPL. The GPL is an all-or-nothing deal. You can only distribute something under the GPL if it is comprised entirely of GPL-compatiable parts. Since the firmware is built with GPL components from both the Linux kernel and the GNU operating system, everything must be licensed under the GPL. Also, the firmware's source code package includes the images so that one can build the firmware with the included Makefile and have everything turn out right. Jesse Viviano 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think someone has to ask Cisco. Because they are the owner of Linksys and will also let the trademark Linksys die soon (see: [4] in German) --ALE! ¿…? 15:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- (800) 546-5797 (Option 3) is their number. You can call, and I'll take your word for it. But if Linksys says that their logo is GPL, that would by default make all derivatives of that logo (including color differences) GPL as well. But I doubt that it is GPL; it is found on products you buy in the store, for example. Althepal 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- On Cisco's website, they say, "The trademarks, logos and service marks ("Marks") displayed on this Web Site are the property of Cisco or other third parties. Users are not permitted to use these Marks without the prior written consent of Cisco or such third party which may own the Mark." and "Linksys" is on their list. Since this means that the Linksys logo cannot be used without written permission from Cisco, that doesn't fit in with the GPL. This is sufficient proof, and it is improper to claim otherwise.'
- (800) 546-5797 (Option 3) is their number. You can call, and I'll take your word for it. But if Linksys says that their logo is GPL, that would by default make all derivatives of that logo (including color differences) GPL as well. But I doubt that it is GPL; it is found on products you buy in the store, for example. Althepal 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think I found my proof. From the Linksys Terms and Conditions:
"The trademarks, logos and service marks ("Marks") displayed on this Web Site are the property of Linksys or other third parties. Users are not permitted to use these Marks without the prior written consent of Linksys or such third party which may own the Mark. "Linksys" is a registered trademark of Cisco Systems, Inc. Please see the complete list of Linksys Trademarks." The Linksys logo is on their web page. I don't think that means it is GPL. Althepal 18:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- And I think the following also means their stuff is protected and copyright: "Linksys hereby authorizes you to copy materials published by Linksys on this Web Site solely for non-commercial use within your organization (or if you are a Linksys Partner, your customer's organization) in support of Linksys products. No other use of the information is authorized. In consideration of this authorization, you agree that any copy of these materials which you make shall retain all copyright and other proprietary notices in the same form and manner as on the original. Except as specified above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel or otherwise any license or right under any patent, trademark or copyright of Linksys or any third party. ALL CONTENTS ON THIS SITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED HEREIN, NO PORTION OF THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEB SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM, OR BY ANY MEANS, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LINKSYS. VISITORS OR USERS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MODIFY, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, TRANSMIT OR CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND ON THIS SITE FOR ANY PUBLIC OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES."
- I rest my case, and think that these quotes from their Terms and Conditions are sufficient to do away with the notion that their logo is GPL, at least until you ask Linksys. (Why do you try making arguments when you could just call or email them and wait? I have again emailed Cisco directly; perhaps I will try a Live Chat at different hours.) Althepal 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- And I think the following also means their stuff is protected and copyright: "Linksys hereby authorizes you to copy materials published by Linksys on this Web Site solely for non-commercial use within your organization (or if you are a Linksys Partner, your customer's organization) in support of Linksys products. No other use of the information is authorized. In consideration of this authorization, you agree that any copy of these materials which you make shall retain all copyright and other proprietary notices in the same form and manner as on the original. Except as specified above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel or otherwise any license or right under any patent, trademark or copyright of Linksys or any third party. ALL CONTENTS ON THIS SITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED HEREIN, NO PORTION OF THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEB SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM, OR BY ANY MEANS, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LINKSYS. VISITORS OR USERS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MODIFY, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, TRANSMIT OR CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND ON THIS SITE FOR ANY PUBLIC OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES."
- Get ready! I finally got an email from Linksys saying that I would get an answer within 24 hrs. Althepal 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Still waiting for my answer... Anyone else try contacting them? Althepal 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. This logo has one of the most convoluted arguments for being GPL I've seen yet! Style points for that :) , but I'm not sure I am convinced that LinkSys intended their logo to be GPL, even if one could argue strictly that it came out that way. We need to do the right thing, whenever possible, and absent some statement from LinkSys that this is their intent, deletion seems potentially prudent. But I'm seeing a more general problem here, what ARE we to do about logos? Category:Company logos has quite a few. Some of which the uploader asserted are just standard typefaces and thus ineligible. I think a more general discussion is in order. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- When I checked out all the company logos found on the commons, I was VERY surprised at how many copyright logos were claimed as being not copyrightable. Almost none of them were entirely in standard font, and they all had trademarked company names written as their recognizable logo. It's a bit shocking to know that a company could work on a logo and then get someone on the Commons to just claim that it is not copyrightable. I'm all for discussion on the topic, but I don't know where that would be held. Althepal 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I mentioned this issue on Commons talk:Licensing which may be a more general place. So far not too much discussion but that hopefully will change. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- When I checked out all the company logos found on the commons, I was VERY surprised at how many copyright logos were claimed as being not copyrightable. Almost none of them were entirely in standard font, and they all had trademarked company names written as their recognizable logo. It's a bit shocking to know that a company could work on a logo and then get someone on the Commons to just claim that it is not copyrightable. I'm all for discussion on the topic, but I don't know where that would be held. Althepal 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I managed to get through to Linksys technical support on the phone (the guys in India). I asked the guy if the Linksys logo is free to use under the GPL license, and he didn't know what that meant. After explaining that GPL stands for General Public License, he seemed to think that it was under the license (but he wasn't specific that he understood how it was released or if he knew the difference between one license type and another). However, I really doubt if he understood what he was talking about, especially since he had no idea what GPL was at first. He told me that this isn't his area of knowledge and that I should contact Customer Support (which directed me to tech support). So I emailed Cisco support again. Hopefully I'll get an answer from a knowledgeable and qualified person, but the answer from tech support does make me think. (Nevertheless, Linksys has specifically said that all content on their site is protected and copyright, and inferring GPL status from firmware is very twisted.) Althepal 22:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- This logo is not copyrightable in the first place (in the U.S., typefaces are not copyrightable even if custom). The company wouldn't care about that anyways; it is trademarked which limits almost all usage. It can be used on the company page itself though, which is enough reason for Commons to host it. There are vast differences between copyright and trademark law and it appears to me they are getting very much confused here. Carl Lindberg 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is not simple typeface; it is modified text. Either way, that doesn't make it GPL. Althepal 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very simple typeface, simpler even than most standard typefaces. Second, in the U.S., typefaces are not copyrightable at all (even custom ones). You need to have ornamentation separate from the shape of the letter itself (say something like this) to qualify. As for the GPL... harder, but maybe. Linksys shipped a version of Linux, so they had to license any changes under the GPL as a derivative work. If the logo was part of that work (like say shown in a startup screen maybe), then it very well may be GPL. If they released a package saying all files in the package were licensed under the GPL, and the image file was in there, then maybe (note though that it would be just that specific image file contained in the package, not any logo of theirs you can find anywhere). I'm sure that could be argued either way. I doubt Linksys would care anyways since again it's the trademark which is more important, which is not affected. But in any event, I don't think this is eligible for copyright. Carl Lindberg 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if the logo is GPL or non-copyrightable, the SVG should be moved to the commons and there is no need for the PNG. Althepal 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- This I can agree with ;-) For the GPL argument, you may need to make the SVG using the GPL'ed bitmap as a source; you probably can't just use any version you can find. There is also the argument that the source text of an SVG/EPS/PDF file is copyrightable even if the corresponding bitmap image is not. Carl Lindberg 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- If there is a copyright icon/logo and I re-draw it, that is still copyright. If there is a GPL icon/logo and I re-draw it, it is GPL. If the logo's status is GPL, all derivative works (everything that looks like it, i.e. the SVG version) is also GPL, regardless of the source. Since it would theoretically be easy to simply vectorized the PNG and modify the colors, the source doesn't change the status--It's all from Linksys. BTW: Still no reply from Linksys or Cisco. Althepal 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily... an author could conceivably release a low-resolution image under the GFDL, while retaining full copyright on the original high-resolution image. There is nothing wrong with that, and the GFDL license does not mean that the high-resolution version can be used under the same license. Logos are a bit harder to define, since all versions are supposed to look the same, but in reality only the bitmap released under the GPL'ed license is free, not any version you get from their website (unless it's the same exact image), as the GPL'ed version is a derivative of those, not the other way around. You are correct about making a derivative work of the GPL'ed image though; that should be fine. Carl Lindberg 22:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- If there is a copyright icon/logo and I re-draw it, that is still copyright. If there is a GPL icon/logo and I re-draw it, it is GPL. If the logo's status is GPL, all derivative works (everything that looks like it, i.e. the SVG version) is also GPL, regardless of the source. Since it would theoretically be easy to simply vectorized the PNG and modify the colors, the source doesn't change the status--It's all from Linksys. BTW: Still no reply from Linksys or Cisco. Althepal 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- This I can agree with ;-) For the GPL argument, you may need to make the SVG using the GPL'ed bitmap as a source; you probably can't just use any version you can find. There is also the argument that the source text of an SVG/EPS/PDF file is copyrightable even if the corresponding bitmap image is not. Carl Lindberg 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if the logo is GPL or non-copyrightable, the SVG should be moved to the commons and there is no need for the PNG. Althepal 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very simple typeface, simpler even than most standard typefaces. Second, in the U.S., typefaces are not copyrightable at all (even custom ones). You need to have ornamentation separate from the shape of the letter itself (say something like this) to qualify. As for the GPL... harder, but maybe. Linksys shipped a version of Linux, so they had to license any changes under the GPL as a derivative work. If the logo was part of that work (like say shown in a startup screen maybe), then it very well may be GPL. If they released a package saying all files in the package were licensed under the GPL, and the image file was in there, then maybe (note though that it would be just that specific image file contained in the package, not any logo of theirs you can find anywhere). I'm sure that could be argued either way. I doubt Linksys would care anyways since again it's the trademark which is more important, which is not affected. But in any event, I don't think this is eligible for copyright. Carl Lindberg 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, I don't think their logo is GPL. There is such a thing as a limited GPL license (which might make it so some files contained aren't GPL), and Linksys has never said that their logo is GPL. I think that until someone can actually get a written statement from Cisco, the default should be that it is a copyright trademark. And again, if this does turn out to be GPL, so is the SVG. Either way, there is no reason to have this instead of the SVG. Althepal 20:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Listen: I have proof that software licensed under a free license (in this such as LGPL) can have a non-free logo bundled, a proof which makes the "proof" for this logo being free meaningless. Here it is: OpenOffice.org is free under the LGPL, but the logo (which is found in the software) isn't free. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoArt--OOo_logo_license See? A logo contained in LGPL software isn't free. THERE's REAL PROOF. I rest my case that there is no reason to call this Linksys logo free and thus this should be deleted from the commons. Althepal 06:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- If the documentation in the package lists it as not being licensed, then yes, that is different. Note that the GPL is a bit more stringent than the LGPL; if the logo is part of the actual kernel software it may not be so easy to disassociate it. However, the point is moot -- this logo is {{PD-ineligible}} in the first place (typefaces are not copyrightable in the U.S.), so there is nothing to copyright. It's trademarked obviously, but that is a separate concept (with utterly separate laws, restrictions, and legal history) from copyright. Carl Lindberg 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Listen: I have proof that software licensed under a free license (in this such as LGPL) can have a non-free logo bundled, a proof which makes the "proof" for this logo being free meaningless. Here it is: OpenOffice.org is free under the LGPL, but the logo (which is found in the software) isn't free. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoArt--OOo_logo_license See? A logo contained in LGPL software isn't free. THERE's REAL PROOF. I rest my case that there is no reason to call this Linksys logo free and thus this should be deleted from the commons. Althepal 06:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Ineligible for copyright. O2 (息 • 吹) 07:49, 05 November 2007 (GMT)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GPLLinksysLogo.png for previous debates over this image
No, I do not think this is under the GPL. The GPL requires that the GPL's copyright notice be placed inside EVERY file used in a GPL licenced program that is covered by the licence (for all I know). This image does not contain any notice, and thus should not be assumed to be under the GPL. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The license is {{PD-textlogo}}, not GPL. The issue is moot (see the previous deletion requests). And as far as I know, no, the GPL does not have to be placed in every file -- if there is a license for an entire package, without any exceptions listed, that would cover it. Placing in every file is recommended but that is not always possible. But as I said, this is a moot point for this image, as it cannot be copyrighted in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a hard one. It's either GPL or PD-textlogo... but it's borderline PD-textlogo. J.smith (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's anywhere near the borderline ;-) -- this is text-only. One horizontal line doesn't change much, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)