One super minor thing, I think it should be spelled extent rather than extend. Other than that at least from my view this looks good. For anyone jumping into this, note I'm not neutral since I believe my project would benefit from such clause.
I agree with the idea of the proposal. The legal implications of logos and trademarks are not an easy thing to handle for open source projects, so I think it's reasonable to not complicate the matter and provide a pragmatic policy on these, as long as:
the open licensing of the main work is not compromised (so no hard dependencies on non-free files that users are not allowed to swap out)
the open licensing of the main work prevails, so logos/trademarks are only a marginal aspect of the project (thus people shouldn't create projects that are only for building and hosting non-free content)
I would also drop the such as and instead write an explicit list of exceptions.
Thus, I propose changing the wording in the direction of this:
The following exceptions are considered acceptable:
Logos and Trademarks that are under a Non-Free License, alongside a main project that is licensed under a Free License if and only if all of the following conditions are met:
(a) The Logos and Trademarks are intended to be used as or like trademarks for the main project,
(b) the freedoms guaranteed by the Free License of the main project are not compromised,
(c) the majority of the main project must be a non-trivial work under a Free License and it must not be a mere collection of logos and trademarks
together with defintions of Free License and Non-Free License like for example
Free License is a license that is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and/or the Free Software Foundation (FSF)
Non-Free License is either no license (all rights reserved) or any other license but a Free License
which we can then also use at other points throughout the terms of service.
The usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. If my proposed wording is considered, it's a very good idea to have it double-checked by someone who knows more about legal issues (plus, a native/proficient English speaker 😁)
For what it’s worth, I just noticed there is also this: -must only contain code and data compatible with the Open-Source license requirements defined by FSF or OSI which sounds like it’d currently conflict with such a change.