Just as an addition from my side: I don't see an issue regarding Blender.
Here taken from the site:

Modifying the Blender logo is really part of your own artistic freedom, and the Blender Foundation will never act against such tributes. Just don’t expect us to “officially approve” of it, that’s all.

It's just about the approval. But regarding SuperTuxKart and Battle for Wesnoth I find the reactions pretty harsh!

throgh wrote:

Just as an addition from my side: I don't see an issue regarding Blender.
Here taken from the site:
[...]

It's just about the approval. But regarding SuperTuxKart and Battle for Wesnoth I find the reactions pretty harsh!

At least, the license is non-commercial (without permission).

Then you should also have a look at all the other projects like Inkscape or GIMP. Here is the one from Inkscape: https://inkscape.org/en/learn/faq/#how-are-inkscape-name-and-logo-protected

The logo is similarly trademarked and covered by our trademark policy. We're cool with people creating derivative works that help promote Inkscape or make it fit in with a given user interface style, but we don't want to see it abused by companies that might incorporate it into their own logos. For merchandising, you are welcomed to use our unmodified logo; for anything else, please contact the Inkscape Board for permission.

And here is more: https://inkscape.org/en/about/trademark-policy/
That's all about protection of the project itself, also regarding Blender. Nobody will blame you, if you do some kind of derivate! But that's just not the official one. The other way? Building up a fork.

throgh wrote:

Then you should also have a look at all the other projects like Inkscape or GIMP. Here is the one from Inkscape: https://inkscape.org/en/learn/faq/#how-are-inkscape-name-and-logo-protected

[...]

And here is more: https://inkscape.org/en/about/trademark-policy/
That's all about protection of the project itself, also regarding Blender. Nobody will blame you, if you do some kind of derivate! But that's just not the official one. The other way? Building up a fork.

Done.

Okay and what is your solution? I've seen that most of the issues you've created were closed. So what is your issue then? Should the packages removed from repositories? What I try here is to start a talk where and how to go on with this. For now I don't see further possibilities! Do you really think the packages like Battle for Wesnoth should be removed?

EDIT: I see, you think the trademarked logos should be removed. https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1442
Well I don't see further problems, because Inkscape is really clear about the way. I see no issue for freedom! It's all about protecting the projects. We talk about software based on work of many people, otherwise everybody can take it and make money with it. That's not a fair way! While this is not used to restrict your or mine freedom. That's all and for now I think you should read again the GPL. :-) Free as in freedom, not free beer! Those projects are intended to be worked with, to be forked. But there are also restrictions, respecting the work of the people behind. And there is no freedom restricted doing that.

throgh wrote:

Okay and what is your solution? I've seen that most of the issues you've created were closed. So what is your issue then? Should the packages removed from repositories? What I try here is to start a talk where and how to go on with this. For now I don't see further possibilities! Do you really think the packages like Battle for Wesnoth should be removed?

EDIT: I see, you think the trademarked logos should be removed. https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1442
Well I don't see further problems, because Inkscape is really clear about the way. I see no issue for freedom! It's all about protecting the projects. We talk about software based on work of many people, otherwise everybody can take it and make money with it. That's not a fair way! While this is not used to restrict your or mine freedom. That's all and for now I think you should read again the GPL. :-) Free as in freedom, not free beer! Those projects are intended to be worked with, to be forked. But there are also restrictions, respecting the work of the people behind. And there is no freedom restricted doing that.

Anything non-free/patented/trademarked must be removed.

temporaryuser wrote:

Anything non-free/patented/trademarked must be removed.

no, only non-free things must be. more accurately, things in violation of the Parabola Social Contract must be. patent licenses can be free or nonfree, just as copyright licenses. besides, Parabola de facto ignores software patents. in many countries they, thankfully, don't even exist.

even though the social contract does not explicitly rule out nonfree recommendations for artwork, my opinion is that Battle for Wesnoth violates the spirit of it —which I see as extending the FSDG to all kinds of works— by recommending nonfree game assets. moreover it's possible that it infringes upon the FSDG. this would be a no-no. notice that only if it does, does dealing with Battle of Wesnoth become incumbent upon all GNU-approved distros. i encourage the rest of our community to comment. in the meantime it's not clear that Battle of Wesnoth needs to be either blacklisted or modified to not recommend nonfree addons.

trademark restrictions don't necessarily make software nonfree, as long as it's feasible to modify the program to escape violating the trademark while retaining the freedoms. a specially harsh example of this was the Firefox trademark, which went as far as cornering you to performing a re-branding of the product for the minutest changes in compilation flags. yet in recent years i've heard Richard Stallman hesitate to call Firefox nonfree because of this liability. as i explained in #1442, i see asking for re-branding and clarity in attribution as a sensible requirement, not a restriction, of the likes of copyleft and other things that usually appear in free copyright licenses.

on the other hand, the Parabola Social Contract seems to be saying that all sorts of branding artwork in our packages should be free; whether trademarked or not. meeting this goal is a pretty high bar as one can learn from your bug reports. my opinion is that Parabola's policy should be relaxed while still encouraging people in our community to contribute (and maintain!) packages with nonfree (and only nonfree) logos replaced. more community input is needed again.

finally; as bad as Steam and DRM are, distribution of free and nonfree copies in parallel and optional support for nonfree platforms are no reason to stop distributing our free copies. although the former speaks badly of the developers' ethical commitments.

As said above: I see no real problem for a further rebranding for example. Or the download of further addons is restricted by modifying the interface - this is already done for Kodi for example. Just speaking for my view: Wouldn't this be possible?

throgh wrote:

As said above: I see no real problem for a further rebranding for example. Or the download of further addons is restricted by modifying the interface - this is already done for Kodi for example. Just speaking for my view: Wouldn't this be possible?

Just remove non-free data; filtering add-ons from bad repository is not good.

temporaryuser wrote:

Just remove non-free data; filtering add-ons from bad repository is not good.

Did you read the proposal? It's about removing the possibility downloading non-free data. Just have a look at Kodi within the Libre-repository. By the way "Just remove non-free data!" is not that easy. First you have to identify the non-free data. That would be easier when we it do together as community and not just demanding that within this ticket!

throgh wrote:

temporaryuser wrote:

Just remove non-free data; filtering add-ons from bad repository is not good.

Did you read the proposal? It's about removing the possibility downloading non-free data. Just have a look at Kodi within the Libre-repository. By the way "Just remove non-free data!" is not that easy. First you have to identify the non-free data. That would be easier when we it do together as community and not just demanding that within this ticket!

How was it done?

Just have a look here: https://git.parabola.nu/abslibre.git/tree/libre/kodi

throgh wrote:

Just have a look here: https://git.parabola.nu/abslibre.git/tree/libre/kodi

Repository URL is changed, it's good.