Use of the LMCE logo?

[Marie.O]

skeptic,

LinuxMCE consists of GPLed and PPLed licensed stuff.

rgds
Oliver

[powerbits]

WAit a minute??


Why should hardware not be sold with a nice linuxmce software on it?

This is the best publishement for the software!

dont act like microsoft now and start waving a license..i thought we were open source?

[tschak909]

We are open source.

Most of our code is licensed under the GNU Public License.

However, there are certain pieces, such as Orbiter, that are licensed under the Pluto Public License, which has one major additional clause, that if you bundle the hardware with the software, you need to pay Pluto Inc. a license. This was done to prevent consumer electronics manufacturers from running off with the product and putting Pluto out of business.

-Thom

[Dale_K]

So I'm confused now.  I think the orginal question was, he wants to sell components and put a "LMCE Compatible" logo on them.  Does Pluto need to be licensed for that?

[hari]

We are working on an approval program. Vendors can have hardware certified by the dev team. This will not be active until the foundation is set up (ongoing).

br Hari

[colinjones]

in my reading, I don't see any reason why Pluto or the PPL has anything to do with LMCE. Sure, if someone was saying Pluto/PlutoHome compatible, I could see how Pluto would have an interest, same as saying MCV or Dianemo compatible, those respective companies would have an interest. But LMCE is not Pluto, MCV or Dianemo.

I think it would be impossible (read not legal) to prevent someone from simply saying in text "LinuxMCE compatible". Using the icon is a different matter - that should definitely be controlled by the "foundation" once it is set up. Its use can be controlled legally - in fact in some countries (like the UK) its Intellectual Property is automatically covered by the "author's" implicit rights without doing anything at all. The image could simply be licensed under the a Creative Commons Non-Commercial licence, then specific grants of usage given upon approval of the foundation to particular commercial entities for specific commercial purposes.

[totallymaxed]

in my reading, I don't see any reason why Pluto or the PPL has anything to do with LMCE. Sure, if someone was saying Pluto/PlutoHome compatible, I could see how Pluto would have an interest, same as saying MCV or Dianemo compatible, those respective companies would have an interest. But LMCE is not Pluto, MCV or Dianemo.

Well the point is that in fact LinuxMCE does contain code licensed under the PPL and that license does have the restriction mentioned earlier in this thread. So it very much does apply.

I think it would be impossible (read not legal) to prevent someone from simply saying in text "LinuxMCE compatible". Using the icon is a different matter - that should definitely be controlled by the "foundation" once it is set up. Its use can be controlled legally - in fact in some countries (like the UK) its Intellectual Property is automatically covered by the "author's" implicit rights without doing anything at all. The image could simply be licensed under the a Creative Commons Non-Commercial licence, then specific grants of usage given upon approval of the foundation to particular commercial entities for specific commercial purposes.

I tend to agree with the above overall and your right about the UK perspective too.

All the best

Andrew

[colinjones]

in my reading, I don't see any reason why Pluto or the PPL has anything to do with LMCE. Sure, if someone was saying Pluto/PlutoHome compatible, I could see how Pluto would have an interest, same as saying MCV or Dianemo compatible, those respective companies would have an interest. But LMCE is not Pluto, MCV or Dianemo.

Well the point is that in fact LinuxMCE does contain code licensed under the PPL and that license does have the restriction mentioned earlier in this thread. So it very much does apply.

Andrew - I didn't mean LMCE the product, the thread is referring to the icon and saying LMCE compatible. My point was, just because LMCE contains code protected by a PPL licence doesn't mean that Pluto has any control over the separate branding that we are using - LMCE. That would make no sense at all. It would be rather like a manufacturer building a PC based on an Intel CPU and then Intel having some say if whether the manufacturer was allowed to put a "Built for Windows XP" label on it. Sure, they have a say if an "Intel Inside" label is on it, but other than that it makes no sense...

[totallymaxed]

Here is an excerpt from the Pluto License page

Examples of “Hardware distribution” which require a separate license:

Code: [Select]

    * 4. A company offers tangible merchandise that comes with the Pluto system pre-installed or bundled with the system, such as a personal computer, a television, an automobile, a point of sale system, etc.
    * 5. A reseller, such as a smart home dealer, offers hard goods which are clearly intended to ultimately run this software, and are marketed as such.
    * 6. A manufacturer offers a product which automatically installs this software, or includes instructions on how to do so.
    * 7. A dealer offers a product based on Pluto, but directs his clients to purchase the required hardware from a third party.


Maybe this helps to clear things up a bit.

Clause 5 is unenforceable in reality (and always was) and even more so now that we have LinuxMCE instead of Pluto branded builds. The phrase 'tested with LinuxMCE' or 'compatible with LinuxMCE' is a statement of fact. The claim also does not refer to compatibility with Pluto software at all. The only issue I can see is with Trading Standards inspectors (as we call them here in the UK) if this claim proved to be false.

Andrew

[zug]

I had things like USB UIrts, Z-Wave stuff and TV cards etc in mind when I posted the question. I simply wanted to add linuxmce compatible to the product listings, whether that's idealy in a logo or even text. Am I right there's nothing stopping me putting 'linuxmce compatible' on a listing, as long as the statement is true of course, but the logo would require permission from the foundation?
Thanks,
Mark

[chipppy]

firstly this is a very interesting discussion as it leads to a whole world of other questions in relation to the relationship between Pluto and LMCE and any commercial arrangements, one of those being is the PPL in breach of the GPL by that I am asking is the PPL imposing a condition that is in contradiction of Plutos GPL.  Remember that Pluto must abide by the GPL in order to b able to use Linux in the first place.

Anyway

Zug here is a silly idea.
As you are asking about the legals to sell a product, it is safe to assume that you are running a business (most probably for profit).  This means that as all good businesses you will have a solicitor that you run any scary legal things past before you move forward.
Why not take you question to you legal guru and ask him, as he is the real solictor in your country, state, provience, town.  He may send you to a specialist in IT law but at least that way you are far safer then listening to us here that are not really qualified to safely answer this question for your business (and therefore family income).
Your solicitor may ask you to chase up information for you from these type of forums but at least then they you will have to correct information.

Though if you feel like it do give us a simplified version of your solicitors answer as the end of the day.

Anyway just some silly ranting from the flu infected mind of chipppy

[skeptic]

Remember that Pluto must abide by the GPL in order to b able to use Linux in the first place.

Can you expand on what you mean by this?  If you are saying what I think you're saying, you're statement is incorrect.

[chipppy]

First thing.  I am not try to start an argument or anything like that, just adding my thoughts into the discussion for discussion, so please do take offense to anything i say or ask

As mentioned further up in this thread.  The opensource communicty wants to not impose the licensing issues that the non-open source companies have in the past.  As such the GPL was invented, and has been tested a few times through various countries court system, both successfully and unsuccessfully.  So the first question that will need to answered by a court is the one of 'Is the PPL in coherance with the GPL?'  As I am assuming from this thread that this has never been tested through a court yet then that is the first question. 

I ask that because LMCE distributes its software under the GPL firstly and also with aherance to the PPL.  But does the GPL in some way over ride the PPL in some way when the software is distrubuted by a seperate organisation to the PPL licensee?  Hard isnt it?  This, unfortunatly, is why we  have courts of law.  This is also why the Opensource community is trying to avoid the licensing because of silly questions like that one can then spend months in courts and cost millions of dollars to some little person just trying to do the right thing.

Remember that a solicitor can write a statement they think is correct and will withstand testing in a court of law but until it is tested and the precident is set that statement remains untested in a specific juristicion, so therefore the statement has the possibility of not being held up.  This becomes a major problem when a statement is writen in one juristriction and then tested in another (written in one country and tested in a different country).

I dont know the answers to these questions, this is why I suggested to ask a solicitor that works in the specific juristion that Zug is working in.

Anyway the original question is about the use of the log.  Personally I feel that it should be simply get ask for permission to use the logo from the owner of the logo.  If permission is given and the logo is used in adherance to the conditions of use issued by the logo owner then all should be good.  Basically the principle of ask the owner.  I feel that Zugs original question should be directed to the owner of the LMCe logo, whom ever that is.  Someone must be the legal copyright owner (some is usually the legal representive of the organisation, director, CEO, etc)


cheers

[fearingsept]

However, there are certain pieces, such as Orbiter, that are licensed under the Pluto Public License, which has one major additional clause, that if you bundle the hardware with the software, you need to pay Pluto Inc. a license.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how much said license fee is?

[totallymaxed]

However, there are certain pieces, such as Orbiter, that are licensed under the Pluto Public License, which has one major additional clause, that if you bundle the hardware with the software, you need to pay Pluto Inc. a license.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how much said license fee is?

You need to discuss your requirements with Pluto Inc. I suggest you contact them if you have a serious interest in getting a License.

All the best

Andrew