On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:15 AM, inode0 <inode0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Either way I'm not suggesting we shouldn't follow the advice of Red >> Hat legal on this matter. I'm just a bit unclear about the boundary. >> We seem to create under free licenses images that are intended to >> represent the Fedora Project in various ways currently without to my >> knowledge asking Red Hat legal to approve them. Is there something >> about a "logo" that makes that process different? > > Let's be explicit. Give me two examples of existing image creation > which you feel fall are meant to represent the Fedora Project that > fall outside the existing trademark usage license language that covers > the official wordmark and graphical logo? Why are you asking me to give you such examples? I certainly did not say there were any such images in violation of trademark guidelines. The images I had in mind don't contain any marks. While not containing any marks something like the four foundation cloverleaf still does get rightfully associated with the Fedora Project. Really, I just asked a simple question. Does the Fedora Board representing the Fedora Project have the wherewithal to declare a particular image (I assumed an image not containing any Red Hat owned marks) a freely licensed Fedora Project logo. John _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
