• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Dash logo and copyright? Looking to promote crypto.

W

wazza85

New member
Hello there I am currently building a business in the crypto world in which one of the goals will be to promote cryptocurrencies including Dash. The thing I have notice is the Dash logo is under a different copyright license from what I can see to the other currencies, see below.

ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

The other currencies seem to just have the logo as open source without the above and I was curious to know why Dash has gone this way?

Reason I ask that is because it makes it unlikely to build something on top of that, like lets say I build a phone game called 'Crypto Dungeon' and use the Dash letter for the 'D' I can't own my logo of 'Crypto Dungeon' but if I call the same game 'Crypto Battles' and use the Bitcoin 'B' I can own my logo. The result will be that I call the phone game 'Crypto Battles' not 'Crypto Dungeon' so from where I stand the license will only hold back Dash.
 
Thanks for pointing this out.

Although some people talk about open sourcing logos, in reality open source licenses are for software, not graphics. When people talk about open sourcing things other than software --and many people do so-- they are not using the concept properly because no open source license makes sense for anything else than code.

What I am not sure is why we have it under CC BY-SA instead of CC BY, which doesn't include the share alike requirement. It may come from the designer or the contact with him. I'll look into it and update here because I agree that CC BY is more appropriate for a logo.
 
Thanks, look forward to the update.

https://airbitz.co/ is an example of what I am saying, if they did that with Dash they could not own that logo so the current license only holds back promoting Dash.
 
fernando said:
What I am not sure is why we have it under CC BY-SA instead of CC BY, which doesn't include the share alike requirement. It may come from the designer or the contact with him. I'll look into it and update here because I agree that CC BY is more appropriate for a logo.
Click to expand...
Me and vertoe chose that license a long time ago. My reasoning:

SA prevents creators using the logo from putting more restrictive licenses on derivative works. Without it you lose any legal recourse to stop someone from, for example, making a minor tweak to the logo, removing the CC license and copyrighting it as their own, and using it for an anti-Dash campaign. SA preserves the link to the original copyright holder by allowing a safeguard in case someone uses it in a way which "would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation" (section 4(d)).

For that reason, I think removing SA would be a mistake, especially since someone can always request that terms be waived for specific uses if necessary.
 
I see so it keeps a link rather than making it fully open source but it would only stop the 'anit-dash campaign' from owning the work or are you saying you could stop the 'anti' work all together? If the SA can be waived for specific uses, what would be the process of applying for that? I am guessing it would mean me talking to you (raze) and vertoe?
 
wazza85 said:
I see so it keeps a link rather than making it fully open source but it would only stop the 'anit-dash campaign' from owning the work or are you saying you could stop the 'anti' work all together? If the SA can be waived for specific uses, what would be the process of applying for that? I am guessing it would mean me talking to you (raze) and vertoe?
Click to expand...
You own the work to the extent that it complies with the terms of the license you used it under. As long as you're in compliance with those terms, you're free to do with your work as you wish.

If you want to amend the terms of the license, you just contact the copyright owner in writing, which in this case is either Evan himself or the Foundation. I don't recall how the issue of ownership was resolved. Maybe @fernando can answer that one.
 
Hey @fernando did you find anything out?

To raze, my understanding is that you would not own the work due to 'ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.' As it means you have to allow others to use it which to me means you don't really own it, like my https://airbitz.co/ example you would have to allow other people to be able to use the logo making it useless to use as your own logo cause anyone else can use it.

Looks like I will just have to use the contact page on the Dash.org website to see if I can get some sort of waiver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top