Re: [tlug] GPL non-sense

[Shawn Brown <big.coffee.lover@example.com>]

> That does not seem to be compatible with the GPL and does not seem to be covered by the article you quote by any stretch of the imagination.

Here's the concrete example.

I agreed to write an application under gpl3 and a corporation agreed
to supply graphics.

I made a repository in git-hub which is gpl3 in accordance with out agreement.

I wasn't really aware that images the corporation was adding were trademarks.

Now, the corporation can distribute my code, but I may not be able to
distribute the application because of trademarks issues.

I can re-write the app but why does the GPL allow distribution of my
work by parties who are not in compliance with the Terms and
Conditions for 1 (the source code)

Anyway, the point is that anyone can take a gpl3 work, put their
copyrights in it and then the original author of that gpl3 work can
not distribute a derivative of the work unless the original author
goes to the perhaps onerous trouble of reworking the app to get the
trademarks out.

I think whoever puts copyrights into a gpl3 work should also be in
compliance with the Terms and Conditions for 1 (the source code), and
ensure that the source is usuable (meaning redistributable in
accordance with GPL3 requirements.  That Red Hat is not in compliance
with Terms and Conditions for 1 (the source code) is acknowledge by
Red Hat themselves.   The code will break if you remove their
trademarks.  Why does their trademark trump my ability to distribute
GPL3 code?

Shawn