Definition of Open Source [was Re: pine: UW permission to distribute]
Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com
Tue Jul 20 22:29:05 UTC 2004
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.
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list