[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Definition of Open Source [was Re: pine: UW permission to distribute]



Jos Vos wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:34:27PM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:


However, the permission granted by UW to you does not suffice to satisfy
the (what I believe to be the) general definition of open source
software, which means the right to redistribute with any modification.


And also a special permission for fedora.us, i.s.o. a general permission,
does violate the general Open Source definition AFAIK.


fedora.us Extras received special permission from the upstream Firefox team that allows us to use the "official binary only Firefox trademark icon" in our firefox package. As long as fedora.us Extras distributes the binary of firefox, we may use that icon, but anybody rebuilding and redistributing the package technically should toggle a switch that disables that trademarked icon.


I don't know much about legal stuff, but I suspect this is similar to the situation of Red Hat's trademarks in RHEL.

If this does "violate the general Open Source definition", I do not know nor do I care.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]