Douglas McClendon wrote:
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?
I make no such claims. I just want Fedora Project Board to verify if the
trademark guidelines match the project goals and see if any
modifications are required in light of the interest in spins and
derivatives. It might even be adding more permissions.
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?
Unlike copyright licenses which are broadly consistent across various
regions, trademark and patent laws seem to be quite different in scope.
Someone more familiar with US trademark laws would have to answer your
question.
I know RHEL has some sort of requirements on plain redistribution based
on a couple of non-software packages which contain the Red Hat branded
images which appear to based on trademark. So it does seem to be
possible but I haven't looked into it in depth.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
