On 16/09/17 18:19, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:

> By this measure, are we implying that Fedora & CentOS cannot be
> distributed because they contain trademarks owned by Red Hat, and
> Ubuntu cannot be distributed because it contains the name and logos
> owned by Canonical?

Your questions are spot on. Perhaps your examples will serve to clarify
the issue:

The point of CentOS is exactly to remove trademarks from Red Hat Linux
in order to be able to distribute it legally.

Quoting from Wikipedia CentOS article.

    /`CentOS developers use Red Hat's source code to create a final
    product very similar to RHEL. Red Hat's //*branding and logos are
    changed*//because Red Hat does not allow them to be redistributed.`/

And I also know that, while you can distribute Ubuntu, you cannot make a
derivative distribution of it and call it anything-like-buntu, or you
will have problems with Canonical Inc.

Quoting directly from

    /`Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be
    approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to
    associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must//*remove and
    replace the Trademarks*//and will need to recompile the source code
    to create your own binaries.`/

As you can see, being this topic such a mess in general, Sugar Labs
would serve its community well by staying clear of any Trademarks, as a
general policy.

Lista olpc-Sur

Responder a