[Linux-aus] Fwd: Use of Penguin Image on Instant Scratchie Tickets.

[Brent Wallis]

Hi,

On 6/19/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <maddog at li.org> wrote:
>
> > It's likely that Jon was agreeing based purely on attribution of copyright,
>
> Yes.  My point was that whatever GPL V2 or V3 means, it has no bearing
> in this particular case.  Larry did not license it under GPL V2, or V3
> or BSD or any other "formal" license.  So "applying" the concepts or
> the desires of the people that wrote GPL v2 or v3 to the logo has no
> meaning here.

Points taken ... but I did not want to debate licenses...I tried to
draw a comparison of "spirit". No more or less....and it failed. ;-)

> I think my thoughts on how to handle this incident are pretty clear.  To
> write the lottery and tell them that "Tux" is a copyrighted logo of
> Larry Ewing is about all that you should do. Actually, to be fairest
> about it, you should contact the company that did the artwork, tell
> them, and let them have the chance to tell the lottery people.  If you
> do contact the lottery people first, any claims of "intent to deceive"
> on the part of the company doing the graphics art work might get you in
> deep trouble.  Remember Hanlon's Razor:
>
>          Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.

All agreed un-reservedly...perhaps I did not make my thoughts clear in
this regard

> Since you are not the copyright holder, in my mind any "redress" of the
> lottery system or the graphics company should be done by Larry, or by
> you if Larry gives you permission to do this.

...and I would ask Larry if copyright was something that I thought was
at issue here but clearly it is not....It's claiming that someone
elses work is your own, related but not the same fish.

> I do have a question though....would there be as much talk about
> "shaming" and as much indignation if Tux was used by your favorite
> charity, instead of the lottery?

Ouch..;-)

It took a while for me to ponder this and the possible outcomes.
But ethically, plagarism , once proven, is a black and white issue IMHO.

Yes I would be indignant. Yes I would want to shame the perpetrator
(not the organisation, the individual/s.) IMHO plagarism (professional
lying) has no place anywhere. The organisation itself has a duty to
_try_ and ensure its people do not do this but they can not be held
accountable...it's a charity, not a business.

If my chosen charity
(http://www.thecompassionatefriends.org.au/TCFAustralia.htm) was to be
found guilty of deliberate plagarism I would be on their doorstep
tomorrow to discuss it...not thump the desk...discuss the issues and
point out the wrong. Not be an easy thing to do at all but IMHO a line
has to be drawn as to what BS we will accept in life.

If an individual in a charity organisation thinks plagarising anothers
creation is OK  then IMHO it reflects on the organisations "honesty"
factor. I would not want to support a dishonest charity. The charity I
have mentioned is global in scope and stunningly effective. They
actively aim for a perception of quiet and honest support. They would
be just as indignant as I if one of their own plagarised in the name
of their cause.

If someone was dishonest in my charity it would be a very sad day for
me personally but I would still feel compelled to right the
wrong...reveal the truth.

It is easy to do nothing.

Much harder to handle the issue ...but IMHO I feel the percieved claim
of originality in relation to the TUX logo should be addressed.

LA:
May I put forward that we at least seek to have the ambiguity in the
email from SA Lotteries clarified?

Rgds
BW