Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
But you do see, that our point of disagreement is over whether or not
what I described was a 'modification'. I.e. your question is
irrelevant to the conversation, since no modification is taking place.
I wasn't merely concerned about what you are doing. I was talking about
the trademark guideline clauses which allow certain kind of
modifications while retaining the name and whether they fit with the
current project goals.
Can you give me an example of a permitted modification that is currently
allowed that you think should not be?
Sure I'd love to have a legal license
which states that any free software I write, cannot be used by
governments to support in any way whatsoever an institution which
engages in 'baiting' tactics that use entrapment as justification
for murder, but I'm a realist.
Such a restriction wouldn't qualify as Free software at all.
That was my point.
Copyright licenses and trademark guidelines are two different things. I
could for example have Free software with trademark guidelines that
didn't allow certain kind of things. If you want to do those things,
you merely have to fork like Firefox and IceWeasel. The trademark
requirements on Firefox the name does not make Firefox the software
non-free.
Can trademark guidelines on free software restrict the ability to
redistribuite bit-for-bit copies of the software, that don't use the
trademarks in any other way than the fact that they are included in
those bits?
-dmc
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
