On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM, inode0 <inode0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> You misunderstood what I said. There are no images that I'm concerned about. > > Hmm. Fair enough. Though if this is the case I would appreciate a > restatement of the following sentence: > >> 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. > > To me this implies a concern for non-theoretical image creation > activity and usage. I'm not sure how else to read that. In the case of a freely licensed logo Red Hat legal was consulted for an opinion (I happen to think that was a wise and prudent course to take). Red Hat legal at least discouraged it and the project decided not to pursue it further at that time. That was at least my understanding. The other images I mentioned without any specifics were intended more to suggest we do this in other cases without consulting Red Hat legal (again only to my knowledge, they might have been consulted for any particular image without my knowing about it for one reason or another). So I was wondering if there was a special legal requirement perhaps governing logos that required legal advice/approval. That was all. John _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
