Re: [tlug] GPL non-sense

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

> If by "trademarks" you're referring to icons and logos, why not just
> replace them with generic icons and logos that are *not* trademarks of
> your client?

OK sure easy enough.  What they want to do though is embed their
trademark pretty deeply.  If they (or anyone) modify the graphics
rendering to include their trademark, suddenly ...

I can get their binary but can't redistribute it?  Wait it was based
on my gpl3 code.
I can get the source but I can't distribute the resulting binary.  Oh
I have to modify the graphics engine.
I can modify the graphics engine but I have to distribute my "code
needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities."

I have a higher burden than Red Hat or any one who acts like them.
I can't redistribute their binary and I don't think I can redistribute the src.
If I work really hard, I may be able to convert their source into
something that can be used but that really seems like a bug to me.

Sure if it's just replacing a few images I will have no trouble.  If
they decide to really go after it and modify the graphics rendering
then for all practical purposes their changes will be useless to me.
I guess GPL3 is not always the right choice but I don't know a better
one.


> If you're referring to the copyright *notice* (ie: the "Copyright (c) 2010
> RedHat, Inc") that's in the code... I doubt anyone would construe that to
> be a trademark that has to be removed on redistribution.

Not so worried here.