It's unclear who's right. I've heard arguments from
other lawyers that
the GPL simply cannot apply to images as the GPL itself explicitly
refers to "source code" and its arguable whether an image is (I don't
personally think images are source code, but a lawyer I am not). A
license that better serves images such as a CC license might work best.
I am not a lawyer either, but I agree with this interpretation of the
GPL. And yet many people do license images under the GPL. It's
certianly very unclear whether this would stand up in court or not.
IMO the FSF should release another version of the GPL specifically for
"media" instead of "source code"'.
This entire argument is futile, because we cannot change the licensing
desicions made by The Mozilla Foundation. We should be accepting that
the licensing is what it is, and do what needs to be done accordingly.
As I see it we have 3 options:
1) Include Firefox in Core with a different name and logo,
2) Include Firefox in Extras with a different name and logo,
3) Do not include Firefox in Fedora at all.
Personally I would opt for (1), but (2) is acceptable as well. (3)
would be a sad loss and would detract from the appeal of Fedora IMO.