🚀 go-pugleaf

"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> writes:

]On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 11:50:19 +0000, Bill Unruh wrote:

]> That may be fine. But redhat must do the same with their own trademarked
]> stuff to be in compliance with the GPL. Ie, it must be a separate
]> independent work. It cannot be an integral part. At present it is an
]> integral part by REdhat's own assertion. "If Customer makes a commercial
]> redistribution of the Software, unless a separate agreement with Red Hat
]> is executed or other permission granted, then Customer must modify any
]> files identified as "REDHAT-LOGOS" and "anaconda-images" to remove all
]> images containing the "Red Hat" trademark or the "Shadowman" logo.
]> Merely deleting these files may corrupt the Software."

]How is that "integral"?  As I understand it, all you have to do is
]replace them with other images.

Merely deleting the files may corrupt the software.
That says it (the images) are integral. If you have to go into an
undocumented file to replace images in places you are not told about,
and simply deleting the file will corrupt the Software, that is
integral.



]As a hypothetical example:  if you had to replace them with other

Which "them"? Where are they located? How can you be sure you have them
all?

]images, *and* update some file with the MD5 checksums of your
]replacement images - and if Red Hat didn't tell you this, but left
]you to stumble over it on your own - then I would certainly join
]you in bitching and moaning about Red Hat's unsavory tactics.  I
]don't think that's the case here, though.

And what is the case here? How does it differ from what you have
described?