View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0004608||CentOS-6||publican-redhat||public||2010-11-11 23:42||2011-04-19 01:35|
|Product Version||Pre Release|
|Target Version||Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0004608: Might need patching|
|Description||publican-redhat might need patching to remove upstream branding, needs investigation|
|Tags||No tags attached.|
All xml files contain references to RH, in the following form:
- feedback.xml: asks for feedback & error reports to be submitted via http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla
I guess that can be left as it is
- Legal_Notice.xml starts with:
The text of and illustrations in this document are licensed by Red Hat under a Creative Commons Attribution–Share Alike 3.0 Unported license ("CC-BY-SA"). An explanation of CC-BY-SA is available at <ulink url="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" />. In accordance with CC-BY-SA, if you distribute this document or an adaptation of it, you must provide the URL for the original version.
Once again, I think we can distribute it as it is, but IANAL so a more advised opinion would be beneficial.
- /usr/share/publican/Common_Content/RedHat/en-US/images/documentation.png, redhat-logo.svg, rhlogo.png and title_logo.* are also disputable but given the above mentioned license, I think they might be preserved. Once again, a more advised opinion would be beneficial.
Once again, the famous discussion about CC-BY-SA license .. From my side (but IANAL either ...) it seems to me that we can distribute those without modifications too ..
So someone from the CentOS devteam would have to answer that question and once it's done, several packages using the same license (for the doc/artwork) can be whitelisted or blacklisted ...
I believe the Upstream would claim that an illustration is different from a trademark. Distributing documentation.png, image_left.png, image_right.png, redhat-logo.svg, rhlogo.png, title_logo.png and title_logo.svg as-is could be consider implying an endorsement by Upstream of CentOS. Regardless of what might be implied by the spec file and Legal_Notice.xml, it is still important to follow the "Red Hat Trademark Guidelines" document provided at:
Note the trademark guideline requires a legal documented signed by both parties for redistribution of the trademark. Neither the spec file or the Legal_Notice.xml are signed by both parties so the trademark guideline document clearly states redistribution of the trademarks are prohibited. The CC-BY-SA only requires a URL to the original version but does not require any trademarks to be preserved. It would comply with both the trademark guideline and CC-BY-SA if these images where replaced with completely transparent images of the same pixel size.