On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 00:29, Warren Togami wrote: > Jos Vos wrote: > > And also a special permission for fedora.us, i.s.o. a general permission, > > does violate the general Open Source definition AFAIK. > fedora.us Extras received special permission from the upstream Firefox > team that allows us to use the "official binary only Firefox trademark > icon" in our firefox package. As long as fedora.us Extras distributes > the binary of firefox, we may use that icon, but anybody rebuilding and > redistributing the package technically should toggle a switch that > disables that trademarked icon. Now you tell us. Is this in COPYING? Such deals should be made explicit to the user to avoid inadvertent violations. > I don't know much about legal stuff, but I suspect this is similar to > the situation of Red Hat's trademarks in RHEL. The above is, but the open source issue is not. > If this does "violate the general Open Source definition", I do not know > nor do I care. Trademark issues are quite different from copyright issues. You should not try to compare them if you "don't know much about legal stuff" ;) . Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research
