At 6:00 PM +0200 6/15/07, Axel Thimm wrote: >Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tctmm6wHVGT/P6vA" >Content-Disposition: inline > >On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:58:34AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 12:38 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: >> >> > Please decide on what is better, if you want the FPC to exempt >> > fedora-logos I'll bring it up there. But maybe the subpackage split is >> > preferred. >> >> It has been extensively discussed that splitting is not an option >> because legal wants us to keep all trademarked images in a single >> package. > >Spliting is *the option* along with teaching legal not to impose such >braindead non-technical issues. ... I would guess that Legal wants there to be a single package whose removal removes all trademarked artwork. I think their purpose is to make it simple for third parties to do legal re-issues from source, as CentOS does. Perhaps third parties also like having a single RPM to redo from scratch. -- ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
