Fedora spin from RpmFusion

[Douglas McClendon]

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?

> 
>>> Sure I'd love to have a legal license
>>>> which states that any free software I write, cannot be used by 
>>>> governments to support in any way whatsoever an institution which 
>>>> engages in 'baiting' tactics that use entrapment as justification 
>>>> for murder, but I'm a realist.
>>>
>>> Such a restriction wouldn't qualify as Free software at all.
>>
>> That was my point.
> 
> Copyright licenses and trademark guidelines are two different things. I 
> could for example have Free software with trademark guidelines that 
> didn't allow certain kind of things.  If you want to do those things, 
> you merely have to fork like Firefox and IceWeasel.  The trademark 
> requirements on Firefox the name does not make Firefox the software 
> non-free.

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?

-dmc