3 ms·

From the linked comment: > This is a formal request to remove all of our branding, including but not limited to, our name, our logo, any additional IP belongin

by remram 2y ago

From the linked comment: > This is a formal request to remove all of our branding, including but not limited to, our name, our logo, any additional IP belonging to the OBS Project Honestly it sounds very reasonable, if you want to fork it's fine, but don't have people report bugs upstream if you're introducing them.

akerl_ 2y ago
I mean, I think the right fix is just for Fedora to stop packaging their own version. But I think that's about being good people; I don't think there's a strong legal argument here for forcing Fedora to do that.
- westurner 2y ago
  Does Fedora's OBS ship with non-free codecs as required dependencies? What should they call the (demanded) fork? Also, Flatpaks have different file paths (like NixOS, which has updated packages according to e.g repology), and so selinux fails with many or most flatpaks.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  That's what they were originally asking for three weeks ago. Or that they would at least make it clear to users that their version isn't official. Both options have been going nowhere until the legal threat was made. Now suddenly both are happening
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > I don't think there's a strong legal argument here for forcing Fedora to do that Isn't the argument that by mangling the software, they've created a version that is no longer the original software, and the the trademark owner want them to stop using the trademark to describe this new version? I think OBS would be happy enough if Fedora simply decided to release their own "FBS" package instead that was the same, other than describing it as "OBS", which the trademark owners have specifically said it's not. From the first line of the IceWeasel Wikipedia entry: > At issue were modifications not approved by the Mozilla Foundation, when the name for the software remained the same.
  - daurentius523 2y ago
    I can see court siding with "IT broke because we applied security fix" much more than "it was using insecure library but was working". Governments dislike insecure.

by remram 2y ago

akerl_ 2y ago

I mean, I think the right fix is just for Fedora to stop packaging their own version. But I think that's about being good people; I don't think there's a strong legal argument here for forcing Fedora to do that.

westurner 2y ago
Does Fedora's OBS ship with non-free codecs as required dependencies? What should they call the (demanded) fork? Also, Flatpaks have different file paths (like NixOS, which has updated packages according to e.g repology), and so selinux fails with many or most flatpaks.
wongarsu 2y ago
That's what they were originally asking for three weeks ago. Or that they would at least make it clear to users that their version isn't official. Both options have been going nowhere until the legal threat was made. Now suddenly both are happening
petesergeant 2y ago
> I don't think there's a strong legal argument here for forcing Fedora to do that Isn't the argument that by mangling the software, they've created a version that is no longer the original software, and the the trademark owner want them to stop using the trademark to describe this new version? I think OBS would be happy enough if Fedora simply decided to release their own "FBS" package instead that was the same, other than describing it as "OBS", which the trademark owners have specifically said it's not. From the first line of the IceWeasel Wikipedia entry: > At issue were modifications not approved by the Mozilla Foundation, when the name for the software remained the same.
- daurentius523 2y ago
  I can see court siding with "IT broke because we applied security fix" much more than "it was using insecure library but was working". Governments dislike insecure.