On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 04:57:51PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 9/20/2010 4:47 PM, Greg KH wrote: > >On M > >>>Great, as there is no final compliance program, all things are free to > >>>use, right? > >>Depending on what is being used, some require proper attribution. > >How can an artwork package require "attribution"? Why wouldn't it > >already be contained in the metadata in the package in the first place? > > my understanding is that some of the artwork as shipped is licensed > only for compliant OSes (technically, OSes that also have a > trademark license), this is similar to > how others protect their logos etc... it's the "identity" that's > associated with the trademark/etc.
Is that conveyed in the license for the rpm package? And again, as there is no "compliancy" program yet, how can this ever be "licensed" properly? What about all the versions shipping today from other companies with this artwork in it? Should we just not have asked and gotten away with it like other companies have? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
