first of, this might not be the right mailing list, so feel free to
redirect me or answer directly instead of to the list.
I came to you, to ask about the right way to license a logo and Name
properly as part of a free software project. We, the Project
Hedgedoc (formally known as CodiMD), are currently working on
rebranding the whole thing to solve some name conflicts. As part of
this we just created a new logo, came up with the name, etc. and we
were wondering what's the right license for those works. GNU and the
free software foundation, as well as OSI have guides for Source code,
documentation and alike, but I couldn't find any resources on things
like Logos and Names.
I know Fedora and the Fedora logo is owned by RedHat, and I'm quite
sure for other project exist similar constructs, but I'm not really
aware how this is set up. Any recommendations or guidance is very
welcome and I would love to hear back from you.
PS: Yes, this is not closely Fedora related, but I really didn't come
up with a better place to ask.
the code contains the following text:
* <db(a)FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you
* can do whatever you want with this code, except you may not
* license it under any form of the GPL.
* A postcard or QSL card showing me you appreciate
* this code would be nice. Diane Bruce va3db
How to name such license in the spec?
thanks & regards
Hi Fedora Legal list,
I am trying to package HaXml <https://hackage.haskell.org/package/HaXml>
Its library is distributed with the LGPL 2.1 license, with an exception
in a COPYRIGHT file:
As a relaxation of clause 6 of the LGPL, the copyright holders of this
library give permission to use, copy, link, modify, and distribute,
binary-only object-code versions of an executable linked with the
original unmodified Library, without requiring the supply of any
mechanism to modify or replace the Library and relink (clauses 6a,
6b, 6c, 6d, 6e), provided that all the other terms of clause 6 are
It also includes some tools which are distributed with the GPL 2 license.
So I'd like to ask for approval for the above exception to make it "LGPLv2
Not sure if that prevents "LGPLv2+ with exceptions"?