It feels like they'd have a hard time making that case, since package repositories are pretty clearly not representing themselves as the owners of, or sponsored by, the software they package.
> This is a formal request to remove all of our branding, including but not limited to, our name, our logo, any additional IP belonging to the OBS Project
Honestly it sounds very reasonable, if you want to fork it's fine, but don't have people report bugs upstream if you're introducing them.
What should they call the (demanded) fork?
Also, Flatpaks have different file paths (like NixOS, which has updated packages according to e.g repology), and so selinux fails with many or most flatpaks.
Isn't the argument that by mangling the software, they've created a version that is no longer the original software, and the the trademark owner want them to stop using the trademark to describe this new version? I think OBS would be happy enough if Fedora simply decided to release their own "FBS" package instead that was the same, other than describing it as "OBS", which the trademark owners have specifically said it's not.
From the first line of the IceWeasel Wikipedia entry:
> At issue were modifications not approved by the Mozilla Foundation, when the name for the software remained the same.
Governments dislike insecure.
Yup. The issue isn't the code but misrepresentation of the origin. It's like back in the day when Debian "forked" Firefox for reasons...
Edit - worded it poorly - never meant to imply Debian did anything wrong, only that they changed the branding to respect Firefox's trademark and avoid the situation that OBS is threatening Fedora with.
Debian didn't actually change the code, but they consider the right to change the code important, and don't accept Debian-specific exceptions.
The main issue that I see, is that OBS doesn't want to be held responsible for the Fedora version, which is different from the "officially-supported" OBS version. They didn't modify anything other than the build, to exclude certain dependencies.
But modifying the build, is modifying the code. They are allowed to do that, but they probably aren't allowed to slap the OBS name on the result.
Is it? Across Ubuntu, RHEL, and Archlinux, basically every package is being built against different versions of its underlying dependencies, and is being patched as needed to work with those distros. Trademarks weaken with lax enforcement, so you'd think if that interpretation held it would be amazingly dangerous for any trademark holder whose software was being packaged for Linux distros.
I suppose the closest analogy I can imagine from non-malicious(arguably) history would be software hosting sites that would repackage installers with their own adware or toolbar or whatever "value add".
By using the brand on something else, the reputation can be damaged
https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox.ja... is the config for what becomes Ubuntu's firefox package
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/fi... is the equivalent for Arch
Both apply different configurations, use different versions of dependencies, and in Arch's case applies a patch to the upstream code.
Which of them isn't Firefox?
They had distribution networks, authorized to carry their brand.
But there were also “gray market” distributors, that would do things like resell foreign market gear, or devices that were separated from sales promotion bundles.
These were our brand, but the company would not support them. No hardware fixes (unless paid), no firmware upgrades, and no marketing support.
Often, the savings were minimal. It was expensive gear; even at a discount.
To be clear here: They do modify it further than that by applying a number of patches.
For example, they replace libx264 with OpenH264 which also requires some changes to the UI code since it is (unfortunately) hardcoded to expect x264 to exist. While there have been efforts to upstream those changes, they have not yet been merged.
It seems (to me) to make sense, for OBS to want their name off of it.