Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net> wrote: > As I pointed out, a company I worked for was required to > remove a trademark acquired after the fact by another > company. From source. You're flipping the problem. The GPL doesn't prevent bundling, the trademark holder prevented redistribution! That has 0% to do with GPL limitations. > Do you consider privately owned source code sitting on > privately owned discs, and not distributed to be "a market > context"? Did you license the source code under an agreement? If so, check the terms of that agreement. That's a further issue that has 0% to do with GPL limitations. I think you're doing a 180 on the legal flow here. The GPL does not require you to remove anything, only something that requires it to function. You can distribute GPL software with trademarks, images, etc... do not require them to function. There is no redistribution issues if the trademarks are removed, because there was no redistribution issue when the vendor added them. -- Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org | (please excuse any http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)