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.
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.
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.