Bill Nottingham (notting(a)redhat.com) said:
Máirín Duffy (duffy(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
> On Thu 04 Apr 2013 09:41:14 AM EDT, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > It's a fair policy, although given that this is merely using the logos
> > present in the fedora-logos package as-is (as I understand from Ryan's
> > mail), I don't know that this counts as modification.
>
> It does; the context in which the logo is displayed is dictated by the
> guidelines just as much as the actual logo graphics themselves. A
> specific example of this is the clearspace rule in the logo usage
> guidelines. For a specific example - the logo used here has no TM.
> There are (very few) contexts in which it's probably okay and we've
> gotten appropriate permission to display the logo without a TM, but
> it's pretty obvious no such permission was sought when using the
> TM-less logo in this instance.
What I'm trying to say is that if the logo requires a TM to be used, the
logo in the fedora-logos package should have it - the expectation would
be that the logos in that package are the proper ones to use without
any modification.
... especially since packagers aren't allowed to ship their own versions
of any logos.
Bill