I think the point of note here is that requiring the removal of trademarks in modification scenarios does not conflict with the open source license of the Eclipse works. The hypothetical concern is that a trademarks guidelines for use somehow create a situation where it is not possible to comply with them and the open source software copyright license at the same time, and I believe Pam is asserting that she did not think that was possible.
Tom
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 1:29 PM Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* Pamela Chestek:
> I am, as described - a sharey license on the logo in the code and
> restrictions on the use in trademark guidelines.
Isn't that quite common?
For example, the trademark license published by the Eclipse Foundation
attempts to use trademarks to prevent redistribution of modified
sources without full-scale renaming of everything:
| Unless otherwise agreed to in advance in writing (which may be in
| email form) by Eclipse, the following restrictions apply:
| […]
| Nobody other than Eclipse open source projects may develop or
| maintain software packages that use 'org.eclipse' in their namespace
<https://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php>
But your initial observation applies here as well—these additional
restrictions are rather deeply buried on their web site.
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
