On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 06/06/2014 01:18 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 12:33 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> It might run afoul of the Firefox trademark thing. A rebranded >>> "IceWeasle GNOME" loses all the brand recognition. >> >> I know we are not allowed to apply unauthorized patches. I didn't >> realize extensions might also be impermissible. If so, that would >> be a strong argument against Firefox. > > We should invoke the lawyers here, but I doubt that this would be > impermissible. I suspect that Firefox implicitly allows this simply by > offering a public extension interface and a freely-available mechanism > to apply them. Is a theme an extension? Does it require patches to Firefox? I literally don't know the answer to those questions, and I'm overly cautions when it comes to modifications in regards to the TM aspects. Also, I completely missed the "packaged as a separate SRPM" part. If a GNOME theme is nothing more than an extension then I would agree with Stephen's assessment, but he's probably correct that we should get it reviewed either way. Apologies if I caused undue alarm. josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
