[WBEL-devel] Long- Thoughts on WB maintenance (was Re: How to get the RHEL Errata?)

[donavan nelson]

I'm under the general impression that John is interested in cleaning the
packages a bit more than what Redhat requires.  This includes removed any
redhat fedora's in WBEL.

>From what I can see, he's generally gotten rid of everything redhat (except
the admin tools redhat-config-* and packages named with redhat).  There is the
issues of the Redhat license agreements on the CD's and the RedHat directory.
 I haven't seen these addressed.

.dn

--
Donavan Nelson
4wx Networks
www.4wx.net

---------- Original Message -----------
From: Charles Lacour <clacour@clacour.com>
To: whitebox-devel@beau.org
Sent: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:27:38 -0600
Subject: Re: [WBEL-devel] Long- Thoughts on WB maintenance (was Re: How to get
the RHEL Errata?)

> On Thursday 27 November 2003 04:51, RftD wrote:
> > Requirements would actually be two files, one diff that updates
> > SPEC/package.spec and creates SOURCES/package-wbel.patch and one tgz file
> > that contains the image replacements needed.  The problem would be that
> > redhat probably wouldn't conveniently place all their trademarked images
> > into a single external source file (which we could simply replace) but
> > would more likely place them in all the source files.  I've not examined
> > this issue closely, but judging from the difficulty mentioned on the page
> > so far, I'd say that redhat didn't take the convenient road.  If anyone
> > thinks they can convince redhat to separate their trademarked images (and
> > other binaries if there are any) into something like
> > Source99: package-version-redhat-tm.tar.bz2
> > be my guest. :)
> 
> Actually, as best I can tell, Red Hat DID do this. It's actually two 
> packages: "anaconda-images" and "redhat-logos", but my reading of 
> their EULA says that if you replace the trademarked images in those 
> packages with images that do not even remotely suggest Red Hat,
>  you're covered.
> 
> That's not every Red Hat-related image in the system (there is a 
> picture of a Red Hat I'm looking at in the "Start" button position 
> under KDE at the moment), but I don't believe that's a trademarked 
> image.  The two big things they have trademarked are the Shadow Man 
> image, and the actual words "Red Hat". (They mention that things 
> like the RPM logo are unregistered trademarks, but when they're 
> describing the rules for putting out modified versions of their 
> stuff, it very clearly states that you must replace any images with 
> those two trademarked items. (See 
> http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/page8.html for
what I'm referring to.)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Whitebox-devel mailing list
> Whitebox-devel@beau.org
> http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-devel
------- End of Original Message -------