Demon license?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey [mailto:grog at FreeBSD.org]
>Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 1:53 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Ray Jenson; freebsd-questions at FreeBSD.org; taob at risc.org
>Subject: Re: Demon license?
>
>
>[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html]
>
>Incorrect text wrapping
>
>On Monday, 18 July 2005 at  1:12:12 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
>> On  Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:14 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>
>No I didn't.  I wrote this on Monday, 18 Jul 2005 08:44:03.
>
>>> The daemon is copyright of Kirk McKusick <mckusick at mckusick.com>.
>>> You should ask him for permission.  In general he gives it if the
>>> usage is BSD-related, as it appears to be in this case.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, the IMAGES of the daemon that are on the
>> mckusick.com website are what is copyrighted.  Nothing is stopping
>> someone from drawing a 'devil' image and associating it with
>> FreeBSD.
>
>I no longer speak for the FreeBSD project, but we have never wanted to
>be associated with devils.  I'm sure we would object if someone drew a
>'devil' image and associated it with FreeBSD.
>

Oh, you must think yourself very clever for that bit of deliberate
misinterpretation.  I hope you don't let it go to your head.

On a more serious note,
the userbase is objecting to certain members of The Project
wanting to jettison the daemon image, and replace it with an image
of a stuffed Teddy Bear (or something equally politically correct)
so in the absense of the Project having much respect for what
the userbase wants in the area of FreeBSD images, you can hardly
expect the userbase to have much respect for what the Project
wants in the area of FreeBSD images, now can you?

The phrase "daemon
image" in the context of a sentence about FreeBSD carries a very
specific connotation of one of Kirks images, that image that I
mentioned in my prior post.  (and is in fact at the top of the
FreeBSD project webpage)  If I had said:

"Nothing is stopping someone from drawing a daemon image"

that would have been interpreted as advocating copyright infringement
due to the connotation, because it would have been read as
making a likeness that is very similar to Beastie.  It would have
been incorrect since that was not what I meant.

However, what I said gets the idea across that the image I'm talking
about would be closer to one of the daemons that are on the USENIX
copyrighted images that were linked.  Thus not infringing on Kirk's
image, yet still getting the "daemon association" across. (not
"devil association")

Actually, it is ironic that over the years that Kirk's image
has been so strongly identified with FreeBSD.  The agitators in
the FreeBSD project that want to jettison it are falling all over
themselves
to carefully explain how that image really isn't a logo for FreeBSD,
and really isn't so strongly identified with FreeBSD.  Yet
we all know different, as your post admits - since if Kirk's beastie
image wasn't identified as "the FreeBSD logo image" by the userbase,
you never would have jumped to Beastie's defense.

But if in fact a succession of "beastie images" had been in current
use, instead of Kirks one very fine image, it would have diluted the
"shock value" of the Beastie image, and probably would have removed
the main objection the "anti-Beastie" group has to the strong
identification
of a Devil to FreeBSD.  (since it would be expected that people would
use whatever imagery they preferred, rather than toeing the line to
use the One True Beastie image that Kirk copyrighted)

Ted