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 https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy: /`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. Regards, Sebastian
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel