No trademarks in upstream source

That's actually *extremely* *dangerous* to upstream, and that's why FLOSS (and the GPL) has (or should have) absolutely no problems with trademarks.

And again, that's why all this blew up with Fedora.

We're all happy with DCOs and Linux enforcing them (along with lots of other Free Software projects). What exactly is the difference between a DCO, and a trademark (other than *registered* trademarks having legal clout)?

A DCO is all about a developer taking responsibility for their code. A trademark is all about a project taking responsibility for their code. You'd get well pissed off if I submitted (broken) code and put your DCO on it, wouldn't you? So why is everyone up in arms about a project getting upset because somebody is using their trademarks to pass off a broken version of the project as being upstream's fault?

A DCO is all about taking responsibility for your own work - good OR bad. A trademark is all about taking responsibility for your own work - good OR bad. And you don't put *somebody* *else's* marks on your own work so that you can avoid responsibility when it all goes pear shaped!!!

(That's why I, and I suspect most other FLOSS guys, have no trouble with you taking my work AND ADDING YOUR OWN MARKS. The problem here, is Fedora didn't - or if they did those marks were rather too well hidden.)

The GPL actually *demands* you add your marks to the source. I actually think it's a bug it doesn't demand you add them to the binary (if distributed where the end user is unlikely to see the source)!

Cheers,
Wol