No trademarks in upstream source

I'm sorry but that is a very weak excuse. We've had lower case for a very long time now. The convention that all caps means shouting, and that it therefore should be used very sparingly, has existed for 30 years at the very least by now. It has been pointed out to you multiple times here. Yet you still continue to use all caps, which in my opinion shows a lack of respect for the people you want to communicate with.

Cool story bro, now since we can see you mastered the world wide web just fine, you're perfectly capable of not shouting so stop doing it every time a thread goes more than 2 comments deep.

> The parent that provoked that was basically saying "if you don't want to do loads of (unpaid) work to enable other people to rip you off, you shouldn't use a FLOSS licence".

So as I understand it, being "ripped off" here means having someone else pass their modified app as the original. I don't want to get caught up in who's being "entitled" about it, that's not really productive.

We often say FLOSS is scratching your own itch, well if the trademark use is a concern then isn't it fundamentally an itch of the upstream trademark holder? If an upstream feels strongly about their trademark being misused by a downstream, then I'd say it's mutually beneficial to both of them if it's straightforward to distribute an unaffiliated version without the trademarks, since the easier it is to do then the more likely it is that the downstreams will dutifully strip the trademark out rather than saying it's too much effort and daring the trademark owner to file suit.

But on a practical level there is one upstream and multiple downstreams, and if I was upstream and cared about this I think I'd prefer to do it once to have a consistent result rather than have each downstream distro patch the app individually at varying effort and quality levels. This is not about who's entitled to what work, but what would give me the best outcome.

Wol, please cite the exact license text (and context/location in the license)

The only things I find in GPLv3, GPLv2, & LGPLv2.1 are:
* In the preamble, it says modified versions should be clearly identified so the original author isn't besmirched. It then says the exact terms are specified later, so while there's an intent there, it's not (as I read it) the binding text
* Later it says that the *sources* must be marked as modified and when (but not how)
* License must be clearly marked
* Original source must be clearly marked if in a combined work
* GPLv3 does allow you to add licence terms to strengthen this further, but it's not the default.

There is nothing about "must mark the resulting version as your own"—just that it must be clear what the license is (so they know they can request source) and then that source must make the modification clear.

I dunno about flatpaks, but assuming there's some way to track them back to their sources/build recipes, then it should be clear they're based on the RPM.

RPM versions inherently identify themselves as distinct from the upstream version (due to the RPM release version added) so that format plus its storage in Git by the Fedora project addresses all the license terms of use (or should).

I didn't read the terms exhaustively, so if I missed something, please point it out.

You've also filed a bug, I assume? From what I've seen, the project takes licensing extremely seriously (they've done intensive license audits, catching numerous violations and defective licenses that other distributions missed)

Quite the contrary. I do not want to defraud anyone. If upstream does not want that I distribute modified versions, I will not do it. But then I will not consider the software FOSS. That is as simple as that.