On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 08:20:48PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 9/20/2010 5:10 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> 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? > > my understanding is that the license field in the (binary) RPMs contains > "restricted" for these, with a detailed license inside the package.
Do you have a list of which packages these are, or are we supposed to dig for them? :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
