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

Re: Fedora spin from RpmFusion

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.


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