<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/09/17 18:19, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CA+cAqjOXPV9hdk9D1RQ1kn=AaP2WoU=M5b+6AOk3DRE3yWSvmw@mail.gmail.com"> <div> </div> By this measure, are we implying that Fedora & CentOS cannot be distributed because they contain trademarks owned by Red Hat, and Ubuntu cannot be distributed because it contains the name and logos owned by Canonical?</blockquote> Your questions are spot on. Perhaps your examples will serve to clarify the issue: The point of CentOS is exactly to remove trademarks from Red Hat Linux in order to be able to distribute it legally. Quoting from Wikipedia CentOS article. <blockquote>`CentOS developers use Red Hat's source code to create a final product very similar to RHEL. Red Hat's branding and logos are changed because Red Hat does not allow them to be redistributed.` </blockquote> And I also know that, while you can distribute Ubuntu, you cannot make a derivative distribution of it and call it anything-like-buntu, or you will have problems with Canonical Inc. Quoting directly from <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy">https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy</a>: <blockquote>`Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.` </blockquote> As you can see, being this topic such a mess in general, Sugar Labs would serve its community well by staying clear of any Trademarks, as a general policy. Regards, Sebastian </body> </html>