First thing. I am not try to start an argument or anything like that, just adding my thoughts into the discussion for discussion, so please do take offense to anything i say or ask
As mentioned further up in this thread. The opensource communicty wants to not impose the licensing issues that the non-open source companies have in the past. As such the GPL was invented, and has been tested a few times through various countries court system, both successfully and unsuccessfully. So the first question that will need to answered by a court is the one of 'Is the PPL in coherance with the GPL?' As I am assuming from this thread that this has never been tested through a court yet then that is the first question.
I ask that because LMCE distributes its software under the GPL firstly and also with aherance to the PPL. But does the GPL in some way over ride the PPL in some way when the software is distrubuted by a seperate organisation to the PPL licensee? Hard isnt it? This, unfortunatly, is why we have courts of law. This is also why the Opensource community is trying to avoid the licensing because of silly questions like that one can then spend months in courts and cost millions of dollars to some little person just trying to do the right thing.
Remember that a solicitor can write a statement they think is correct and will withstand testing in a court of law but until it is tested and the precident is set that statement remains untested in a specific juristicion, so therefore the statement has the possibility of not being held up. This becomes a major problem when a statement is writen in one juristriction and then tested in another (written in one country and tested in a different country).
I dont know the answers to these questions, this is why I suggested to ask a solicitor that works in the specific juristion that Zug is working in.
Anyway the original question is about the use of the log. Personally I feel that it should be simply get ask for permission to use the logo from the owner of the logo. If permission is given and the logo is used in adherance to the conditions of use issued by the logo owner then all should be good. Basically the principle of ask the owner. I feel that Zugs original question should be directed to the owner of the LMCe logo, whom ever that is. Someone must be the legal copyright owner (some is usually the legal representive of the organisation, director, CEO, etc)