RHEL6 Wallpapers

[Sam Sharpe]

On 29 August 2011 22:49, g <geleem at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On 08/29/2011 08:46 PM, Sam Sharpe wrote:
>> On 29 August 2011 19:14, g <geleem at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On 08/29/2011 05:03 PM, Sam Sharpe wrote:
>>>> that several packages have changed:
>>>> http://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/6x/rnotes/sl-release- \
>>>> notes-6.0.html#changed
>>> i am also familiar with that page and i can only say that we interpret it
>>> differently.
>>
>> I'm confused. That page specifically says that the redhat-logos
>> package, which contains the desktop backgrounds the OP is referring to
>> has been changed, and the copyrighted artwork removed.
>>
>> How do you interpret that page differently?
>
> in that not all artwork has rh, rhel and such names or logos in them, as
> is mentioned in the 'change' portion.
>
> what you were saying, not quoting, but in general/inferring, that all
> artwork will have such copyright in them. maybe using term 'interpret'
> should have been different.

No, what I said was that that package has been changed and actually I
knew that the backgrounds were included in the change, although I
didn't state that directly. I wasn't inferring that everything in the
package is different, although it could be because the entire reason
that Red Hat package most of their branding in that RPM is to make it
easy to swap out. Check out /usr/share/backgrounds/1280x1024_dawn.png
in the following archives:

http://ftp1.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6.1/SRPMS/sl6-changed/redhat-logos-60.0.14-2.sl6.4.src.rpm
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Workstation/en/os/SRPMS/redhat-logos-60.0.14-1.el6.src.rpm

Are you saying those are the same?

> what ever, artwork is covered by 'fsf' licensing and there should be
> a lot in sl packages that is in rhel packages.

Nope, the artwork in RHEL is not necessarily covered by 'fsf'
licensing (whatever that is). It's covered by whatever Red Hat license
it under.

> whats more, because it is graphical, there are ways of removing what is
> there. gimp is only one of the great linux graphics programs that can be
> used to remove what may be protected.
>
> i hope that clears up any confusion or misunderstanding.

Those backgrounds have been changed, as evidenced above. I'm not
really sure what point you are making here, so I am still confused.

-- 
Sam