Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As I pointed out, a company I worked for was required to
> remove a trademark acquired after the fact by another
> company. From source.
You're flipping the problem. The GPL doesn't prevent
bundling, the trademark holder prevented redistribution!
That has 0% to do with GPL limitations.
> Do you consider privately owned source code sitting on
> privately owned discs, and not distributed to be "a market
> context"?
Did you license the source code under an agreement?
If so, check the terms of that agreement.
That's a further issue that has 0% to do with GPL
limitations.
I think you're doing a 180 on the legal flow here.
The GPL does not require you to remove anything, only
something that requires it to function. You can distribute
GPL software with trademarks, images, etc... do not require
them to function.
There is no redistribution issues if the trademarks are
removed, because there was no redistribution issue when the
vendor added them.
--
Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx | (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
