On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:59:51PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> My point is that we really need this. AFAICT you are worried about >> *possible* violations, not any comitted currently by my (libosinfo and >> Boxes) patches. If that is so, I am willing to take the risk unless you >> have a better solution in mind? BTW I already checked that installer ISOs >> dont always provide a logo that we could use. :( > > I'm arguing here based on my position as a Fedora maintainer. It isn't > about whether either of us are prepared to take the risk, rather whether > Fedora is prepared to. Based on that thread quoted, they don't consider > this kind of thing acceptable. Most probably its just that I'm not able to understand that mail you linked to. So to make it easy for me, please answer the following question: Are we *already* violating any trademarks with my patches or is my understanding correct that you are concerned about possible future violations that are likely to happen because of the approach these patches take? > So if we want to go forward with this, my suggestion is to again mail the > Fedora legal list, outlining exactly what is proposed for libosinfo/Boxes > and see if they still have an objection to it. I'm not optimistic about > that though. Sure, I'll do that! -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124
