--- "Patrick W. Barnes" <nman64(a)n-man.com> wrote:
On Friday 28 April 2006 11:33, "Chitlesh GOORAH"
<chitlesh(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> On 4/28/06, Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Jane Dogalt (jdogalt(a)yahoo.com) said:
> > > 4) /usr/share/backgrounds/images/default.png is the 1600x1200 default
> > > gnome fedora logo background, which is not owned by fedora-logos*.rpm
> > >
> > > 5) fedora main menu button is also not apparently owned by
> > > fedora-logos*.rpm
> > >
> > > I'm guessing 4&5 are 'bugs'.
> >
> > Yes, please file these, if you could.
> >
> > Bill
>
> I doubt that these are among fedora-logos.XX.rpm
>
> --
>
http://clunixchit.blogspot.com
>
IIRC, they're part of redhat-artwork.
#4 at least-
rpm -qf /usr/share/backgrounds/images/default.png
desktop-backgrounds-basic-2.0-31
#5 does appear (/usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/96x96/apps/gnome-main-menu.png?) to
be owned by fedora-logos, I'm guessing it got copied to a homedir during login
(before I rpm -e'd fedora-logos)
Speaking of redhat-artwork. I've heard several mentions on this list that
fedora-logos is the only issue with redistribution. Seems odd no one has ever
mentioned redhat-artwork.
Back in the day when fedora was supposedly a distinct community entity, one
could take the reasonable implication that if fedora could use redhat-artwork,
any other community project could as well.
I notice that the centos strategy appears to be keeping redhat-artwork as an
rpm, but (I haven't inspected that closely) scraping some red hats out of it.
I'm curious- All the bluecurve stuff in redhat-artwork- Does redhat stake
claim to that? I guess I need to actually install centos and see specifically
what they do, as they seem to be the standard reference for how to deal with
making a derivative distro and respecting the copyright/trademark guidelines of
the "upstream vendor".
-jdog
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com