Re: Draft of Proposal for the GNOME Foundation.

[Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>]

> > So you wont be using the bonobo mozilla component idea any more ?
> 
> If that language is going to hold, then we could use the Bonobo
> mozilla component, but it could never be considered a core part of
> GNOME.

Would adopting the DFSG definition be more productive 

>     2. The software itself (minus the logo file) is licensed under,
>        say, the GPL.  And so you must ship a license statement with
>        the software, always.  The logo must be licensed under
>        different terms.  Since the logo is intellectual property which
>        we own, and it's being licensed, we should ship a license
>        statement with that, too.

Sounds remarkably like

	redhat-logos-1.0.2.noarch.rpm

> and not that that's bad!  Having a GPL'd logo for GNOME is cool.  The
> excerpt above is about a different situation -- a corporate logo --
> which, I hope you can understand, we would not want to GPL.

One use for that will be a gnome standard compliant logo in the future, so 
you know this is gnome 2.0 will run gnome 2.0 apps and isnt a cvs snapshot
let loose by a lunatic distro

> > [Need a statement of what happens if a referendum requires the board act
> >  in a manner inconsistent with applicable law]
> 
> the referendum should have been stillborn. 

Should.... this however happens. Its a regular occurence in charitable causes
paticularly that the trustees are forced to veto the wishes of the majority
to remain legal.

Alan