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

[Warren Togami <wtogami redhat com>]

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.