On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 02:51:52PM +0100, Ilyes Gouta wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks Rex for the heads up :) > > Yes, the goal is to just package the software, the source code won't > likely be changed - so it wouldn't constitute a derivative work (in > the sense of a forked source code). > > @Toshio : > > > Are there specific trademark licensing terms? I think we'd want to know > > what those are. And if they're too onerous (Personally, I'd rather not have > > more software that was as restrictive as firefox) we'd probably want to > > change the name/other trademarked assets. > > http://www.zotero.org/support/terms/trademark > > It's explained in that page that the trademark should be explicitly > and specifically licensed (in writing from George Mason University) if > used alongside any derivative work; which isn't the case in this > effort as the goal is to just package that same software. Zotero > developer Simon Kornblith confirmed that it would be OK (see > http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/23104/packaging-zotero-for-gnulinux-distributions/#Item_0). > > Alright, I'm then proceeding with the packaging. > From the look of it, that is very similar to the mozilla trademark restrictions. There's been another case recently where an upstream has asserted that they want certain (in that case, unspecified) veto rights wrt our package of their software if it uses their trademarks. I think this is unsettled territory but something that we need to start thinking about formalizing... spot (for Fedora Legal), FESCo, and the FPC probably need to put their heads together to decide who's going to work on this and what the desired outcome is. Right now I think this is a case by case basis by FESCo about whether we can live with the specific restrictions that upstream places on works that include their trademarks. The specific trademark licenses might need to pass through Fedora Legal as well to be sure that there isn't some use case that we would want to be able to do that isn't allowed by the license (for instance, we do patch firefox... but only with certain commitment by upstream... I'm not sure if that has to be explicit in the trademark license and I'm not sure if all upstreams are good candidates for his treatment or if it depends on availability of their in-development source code, our ability to get official patches from them, etc.) The code itself would be fine to package -- it's just a question of whether we'd need to strip out the trademarked items. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpYpUhTknpC7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
