On 3 January 2013 21:18, Timothy Normand Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> Note that inclusion of this language may not qualify this license as >> open source per the OSI.
> IIRC, the FSF made a statement that they're perfectly fine with companies > using trademark protection for a brand identity. So they defend the right > of CentOS to maintain a more accessible fork of RHEL, and they also think > that Red Hat is within their rights to say that CentOS cannot use the > trademark "Red Hat" without permission. Rereading the thread I think the placement of my comment may have lead to confusion: I meant for this comment to relate to === > (9) The submitter of a Modification forfeits the right to any patents > covered by This Work and pledges to not enforce any patents covered by > This Work. === not the trademark clause, which is probably okay. ;) -- Eitan Adler _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
