Hans de Goede wrote: I'm not speaking of behalf of the RpmFusion project so I make that clear ! If some one has taking it as such then I apologies It was never my intent to do so. My mistake what I meant to say Subject: Fedora spin from RpmFusion packages. I'm stricktly talking about an Fedora spin that will include RPMFusion repo to address an serious ( atleast I look at it as such ) problem an prevents Fedora to come even more widespreaded and add an working media support for the noob user so noob user does have to do anything to get an working media support. other then install and things work for him Best regards Johann B. -- Jóhann B. Guðmundsson. RHCE,CCSA Unix Kerfistjóri. Kerfistjórn. Reiknistofnun Háskóla Íslands. Tæknigarði, Dunhaga 5. Rafpóstur: johannbg(a)hi.is 107 Reykjavík. Sími: 525-4267 Ísland. Bréfasími: 552-8801 Johann B. Gudmundsson. RHCE,CCSA Unix System Engineer. IT Management. Reiknistofnun University of Iceland. Taeknigardi, Dunhaga 5. Email: johannbg(a)hi.is IS-107 Reykjavik. Phone: +354-525-4267 Iceland. Fax: +354-552-8801

Jesse Keating wrote: I guessed so.. and replacing the artwork as well right? Encryption added to the checklist.. But would I still be allowed to update and use Fedora repos right? As in how deep would I need to go in renaming things? Removing every image containing the Fedora logo and every instance of the word Fedora. Repackage? Mean what are the exact issue with for example libdvdcss ? licenced GPL In other words for me do get my spin hosted on fedora project I can only play with fedora packages in fedora repo and how *my* setup is aka spin correct? As in my spins do not include Emacs because Emacs sucks as an editor compared to Vi.. No offense Emacs users this was just an example... For me it it would. Would it increase the usage of Fedora? Also would like to see what would be the next issue if the media problem would go away from user perspective. ( As in the user didn't have to bother to take some extra steps him self work out of the box kinda thing. ) Best regards. Johann B. -- Johann B. Gudmundsson. RHCE,CCSA Unix System Engineer. IT Management. Reiknistofnun University of Iceland. Taeknigardi, Dunhaga 5. Email: johannbg(a)hi.is IS-107 Reykjavik. Phone: +354-525-4267 Iceland. Fax: +354-552-8801

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 07:25:51AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: With the exception of the trademarked logos, the rest of the artwork is licensed to be reused, so it need not all be replaced. There's work underway to make the fedora-logos package replaceable exactly so this task becomes trivial. -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg(a)hi.is) said: You may find the recently added generic-logos package useful. Correct - we can't host things that contain packages or content we can't ship. Bill

Jesse Keating wrote: The Fedora-unity re-spins could be posted on fedoraprojects.org along with the official img right? They just contain updates and nothing outside the fedora repo tree. ( And their FC6 respin release didn't contain the whole FC6 I586 issue that slipped through QA ) And I think that Max Spevack ( or any Red Hat/Fedora offical ) should contact them and offer them to post their images along with the official ones. That alone would be progress in the right direction ( and save users bandwith and long update time ) Best regards Johann B. -- Johann B. Gudmundsson. RHCE,CCSA Unix System Engineer. IT Management. Reiknistofnun University of Iceland. Taeknigardi, Dunhaga 5. Email: johannbg(a)hi.is IS-107 Reykjavik. Phone: +354-525-4267 Iceland. Fax: +354-552-8801

Mike McGrath wrote: I still think that Fedora-unity re-spins which are the official img with updates should be on the front with the official ones ( and I feel even more strongly about this issue should replace the official ones ). If users would have downloaded the FC6 respins instead of the "original cant be *touch* updated nor fixed after the release" ones would have saved alot of trouble ( I586 issue ). Custom spins like Daves spins or Mary's spins can be under spins.fedoraproject.org Best regards Johann B. -- Johann B. Gudmundsson. RHCE,CCSA Unix System Engineer. IT Management. Reiknistofnun University of Iceland. Taeknigardi, Dunhaga 5. Email: johannbg(a)hi.is IS-107 Reykjavik. Phone: +354-525-4267 Iceland. Fax: +354-552-8801

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: In another thread on another mailing list I'm reading that Release Engineering will need to be able to build the spins that are to be blessed by the Fedora Project Board, and they have chosen to only do so with their own tools because they have "zero confidence" in the tool Fedora Unity uses. This would prevent the Unity Re-Spins from being blessed or included in a Fedora Project torrent site. Surely if a handful of volunteers can do it, as they do now, it shouldn't be the slightest problem for Red Hat, would it? and when we're One of which is to compose a spin with the updates fixing the issues, don't you think? Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen - -kanarip

Mike McGrath wrote: Ok so let's take it step by step from the normal user... Even if he's familiar with other tools to created the images whatever they might be he knows that the image gets dropped since it he's not using the official Fedora remixing tools. ( Not looking at the quality of the final product/outcome but automatically dropping it since it was not build using official Fedora remixing tools ) So he study s he reads he learns, and finally masters Pungi,LiveCD Creator and Revisor. Don't know how much time it takes for an normal user do to that but let's say he stays focused through out the process. Happy as he is after all his work reading testing and all he now can start building his own favorite Fedora spin that he wants to share with the rest of the world or his fellow Fedorians. He starts his normal package selection he wants this and he doesn't want that and let's give him that he manages to go through that without his package constantly being pulled back in due to dependency. His package selection has now been successfully finished. For the finishing but vital touch for the him, his look, his feel, his view of the world, HIS theme and look in Gnome or KDE, because he wants to brag about how *COOL* his desktop looks but then he realizes that his icons, desktop image and window manager themes cant be used since he pulled it from gnome-look or kde-look or he created the theme/icons/background image himself and since his theme was not in the official repo he knows is spins gets rejected. Since he had put all that work in this already.. he's stubborn and decides to send his *final product his spin* to the release engineers. He was lucky he was the first of 1000 Fedorians that wanted to share their spins with each other so the release engineers actually could spare the little time they have from working on the official Fedora to review his spin and yes it is as technically Fedora as possible and he gets an pass, yea he thinks yes, it's not all for nothing, now for the board will they approve, Can he use Fedora trademarks? He can.... But But.. He had forgotten to learn how to create kickstart file, after all this work, so close yet so far... He study s, he reads, he learns, he MASTERS kickstart.. ant the beautiful kickstart script is born He gives the much needed kickstart script to the not so busy release engineers ( tho they are getting overloaded they seem to have less and less time to focus on Fedora itself.. ) It gets approved, It is there.. His work has now made it to the spins.fedoraproject.org he brags, points. spreads the word, look there it is there's my spin of Fedora.... It hits all the internet news websites, users from all over the world start downloading and installing, the first spin ever to be released on spins.fedoraproject.org. and whats the outcome it's is an web browser, an email client, and an office suite with no media support in theme that was so far from the user ideas as possible. A major flop, the reviews go in, user reads it, graps the next shot gun and kills himself. If this spins project is ever gonna work for both developers and users. the upload process of the spins have to be done without any reviews. Since the user is restricted to "Fedora ways" and the outcome can always be calculated you can take md5 some or some other thing of each package(s) + that with another package(s) store all the possible variation in a database, create a spins, Create a spin dump directory on the web server. let the user have an FC account which they have to authenticate against and after log in aka in their fedora account, there would be an option to upload an spin. When they are gonna upload a spin, they are asked to put an description of the spin(s) and the sum of the spin packages which is then match to the all possible sums in the database and voila. Release engingeers can focus on their work, users dont have go through "reviews" to be approved.. everybody is happy or as they can be ( except of no media support in their spins ).. Think more then 1 user people how where you gonna handle 10000 of spins, or this being develop of not being used and popular... ***sight*** Best regards. Johann B. -- Johann B. Gudmundsson. RHCE,CCSA Unix System Engineer. IT Management. Reiknistofnun University of Iceland. Taeknigardi, Dunhaga 5. Email: johannbg(a)hi.is IS-107 Reykjavik. Phone: +354-525-4267 Iceland. Fax: +354-552-8801

On 28.09.2007 20:14, Mike McGrath wrote: In addition: let's get rpmfusion running first before talking about rpmfusion spins. /me wanders off to continue installing plague for rpmfusion Cu knurd

Mike McGrath wrote: So an image that is created in hour(s) day(s) weeks is an image that is better than an image that is created in 5 minutes.. So as long as I created the image in an time line the suits you guys that are interested. ( just hope that evolution will come to an halt and so I images that I would respin can meet their timeline ) The uploaded images would be deleted after user account as been inactive for a while or on 2 months after a new Fedora release For the record if people haven't noticed it yet playing by those Fedora restricted/bounded rules will never become interesting... Know variable == Known result == Boring.. With this limited thinking this project is doomed to fail.... Best regards Johann B. "Put the clay in the hand of the individual and see what he creates without boundary's it's then when the outcome becomes interesting " -- Johann B. Gudmundsson. RHCE,CCSA Unix System Engineer. IT Management. Reiknistofnun University of Iceland. Taeknigardi, Dunhaga 5. Email: johannbg(a)hi.is IS-107 Reykjavik. Phone: +354-525-4267 Iceland. Fax: +354-552-8801

Things settled once and for all.. With those word said. Is it an official statement from Red Hat/Fedora that proper media suppport and an option that could allow user to do so during install anaconda/firstboot ( disclaimer/user takes responsibility rpmfusion or other 3rd party repo setup for user and user can chose to install "questionable software" packages from there) inclusion or an chose for an user to setup, install or othewize an 3 party repository during installation that may contain questionable" software will never make it into Fedora/Red Hat unless changes in ( US )laws are made. ( And doesn't Red Hat/Fedora have to blacklist or prevent during installation that the name and paths of known 3 party repostory's from legal perspective otherwise they can be held countable? ) Users and developer can drop all discussion regarding this issue and ways to solve it. Leaving users and developers with these 3 options.. A. An addon cd that includes the prober media package. Users are left with the option to find and download an cd that contains the questionable software and can install from/off it B. User have to install/setup the 3 party respository after initial installation/setup. C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that include the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution ) Software that is/has been developed that can be misused to break "laws" tho it's initial creation and function of the software was never indented to do so will never be included in Red Hat/Fedora ( Even tho that package is gpl and source is made publicly available ) made available, in Red Hat/Fedora Just so things can be settled.. Best regards Johann B.

Rahul Sundaram wrote: But technology and published legal guidelines change... 'should' is one of those words... By my reading of the current trademark guidelines (before they disappeared from http://rhold.fedoraproject.org/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/ it is totally possible (with a little initrd guru-dom) to repackage the fedora-8-livecd iso (other isos too, but I'll use this as an example), such that mp3 and rpmfusion(or other arbitrary repos) work 'out of the box'. Just make a new iso, that contains the old iso as is, with a new initrd and bootloader, that present the user with two choices- a) "boot the official unmodified fedora-8-live image" or b) "boot the official fedora-8-live image, patched with mp3 support and software repository configuration that the fedora organization does not support or condone in any way" Given that the fedora trademark guidelines allow the above (seriously they do, I was very surprised when I read them myself), and given that some individuals and organizations may live in different countries, or have lawyers that come to different conclusions about what laws their country permits, I think the above should make everyone happy. No, such software compositions as described above would not be hosted by fedora, but hey, that's what bittorrent is for... -dmc (P.S.- please rel-eng-team, keep the official livecd iso as far under 700M as possible, wink wink, nudge nudge...)

Rahul Sundaram wrote: [unsnip] Just make a new iso, that contains the old iso as is, with a new initrd and bootloader, that present the user with two choices- a) "boot the official unmodified fedora-8-live image" or b) "boot the official fedora-8-live image, patched with mp3 support and software repository configuration that the fedora organization does not support or condone in any way" [/unsnip] Ok, thanks to MikeMC, I can defend my position from http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html " Shipping Fedora™ code unmodified from the original download with separate patches that may be applied by the end user at his/her discretion is not a modification of the original code, provided: 1. The original Fedora™ code is intact and identifiable at the time of installation and on the media on which the code is delivered; 2. The patches are provided independent of the original Fedora™ code and are identifiable on the media on which the code is delivered; 3. The end user is given the discretion as to whether to install the patches; and 4. Any marketing materials related to such a distribution make clear that the vendor is providing patches which, if installed by the user, will modify the Fedora™ code from its original form. " Please tell me how my above thoeretical repackaging of fedora does not fall into this *very* explicitly permitted scenario. -dmc

Rahul Sundaram wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't think you fully understood what I was describing, or the specific permissions involved. I was not talking about modifying one single bit of fedora, but rather packaging it with other software which fedora has no desire in auditing either the quality, or legality of. Likewise, the specific fedora legal guidelines I quoted, went to great lengths to create this exception and definition of what constitutes "non-modified fedora" and under what circumstances it is acceptable to redistribute it. Key Here- 'the fedora software', i.e. a 690M(fingers crossed) LiveOS iso image with a specific sha1sum, remains intact and unmodified. It is merely distributed in combination on media with additional software, fully adhering to the 4 conditions set forth in the legal guidelines. Remember, those guidelines were put in place presumably so that OEMs could ship software of any quality (i.e. maybe it eats half your hard drive every other install), in a way that integrates that software with fedora, but also in a way which keeps 'pure fedora' 'pure'. Whether the software addon is buggy crap that corrupts filesystems, or whether it is not legal in some countries, is really beside the point of diluting or poisoning the brand. (or rather, again, the guidelines are what puts up a firewall that is deemed acceptable for protecting the brand from _any_ arbitrarily 'bad' software/patches). Cheers, -dmc

Rahul Sundaram (sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org) said: The guidelines were specifically designed so that someone could ship stock Fedora and an additional repository of vendor packages, whether it be Dell addons, Creative Commons content or whatever. If those guidelines are followed, then, without actually changing the guidelines, it doesn't really matter what that content/packages are. Bill

Rahul Sundaram wrote: Nobody currently gets to call anything "Fedora" that isn't a very specific set of bits that are originally and solely shipped by the fedora project. What they get to do, is take those bits as a whole, not modify them in any way whatsoever, and bundle them with other software, with the explicit restriction that- " 4. Any marketing materials related to such a distribution make clear that the vendor is providing patches which, if installed by the user, will modify the Fedora™ code from its original form. " Is it ok for Honestly, what business is it of yours, how people distribute *unmodified* copies of fedora? Sure I'd love to have a legal license which states that any free software I write, cannot be used by governments to support in any way whatsoever an institution which engages in 'baiting' tactics that use entrapment as justification for murder, but I'm a realist. Hopefully our software will save more babies than it kills (or 'eats' is I suppose the parlance of choice...) -dmc

Rahul Sundaram wrote: But you do see, that our point of disagreement is over whether or not what I described was a 'modification'. I.e. your question is irrelevant to the conversation, since no modification is taking place. That was my point. -dmc

Rahul Sundaram wrote: Can you give me an example of a permitted modification that is currently allowed that you think should not be? Can trademark guidelines on free software restrict the ability to redistribuite bit-for-bit copies of the software, that don't use the trademarks in any other way than the fact that they are included in those bits? -dmc

On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 11:55:34AM -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote: yes, they can, which is why one of the feature of Fedora 8 is to clean up the fedora-logos and redhat-artwork packages, and the addition of the generic-logos package, exactly so one can create a derivative of Fedora using and containing only Free Software, easily, without including the Fedora trademarks. -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux

On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 04:23:33PM -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote: AIUI, the obscure legal reasoning seems to be that if the distribution delivers pre-linked kernel modules, such infringes the kernel's copyright; but if the linking is done by end users, that it somehow doesn't infringe that copyright. I've never been comfortable with this line of thinking myself. If true, it feels like passing the buck, and I grew up in Independence, MO[1]. One challenge to Free Software is that it's based upon copyright law. The other two pillars of "intellectual property law" are patents and trademarks, neither of which are often adequately addressed in copyright licenses, insofar as they're not even mentioned. GNU GPL v2 does include some text regarding patents; v3 even more so. So unless you adequately license patents and trademarks too, copyright licenses don't convey "all" the rights one might need to do "anything you want". GPL doesn't speak to modifications - it's obligations are incurred at point of distribution of the work, modified or not. [1] Home of Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States. Famous for the saying "the buck stops here". -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux

Rahul Sundaram wrote: I think you are trying to control things that are beyond the scope of the project. I was not advocating any action on the part of the fedora project, I was merely describing what I believed to be legally allowable for any individual to do, in a manner completely detached from the fedora project. Believe me, if this was something I wanted to personally do, I'd have done it, and not bothered discussing it here. Certainly it is up the Board and RHLegal to modify existing published documents as they see fit. But I am trying to persuade _you_ Rahul. I'm trying to persuade you that these permissions are a good thing, and you needn't and shouldn't lobby for them to change to 'protect fedora'. I think the guidelines as they stand were well thought out in the first place, with the intent of 'protecting fedora', and that changing them will serve no useful purpose, other than demonstrating that the fedora project has some control issues on par with GPLv3 (yes, I'm trying to be both serious and humorous as the same time ;) Please, just accept that what I described is a perfectly valid *use*(!=modification) of fedora, and that the fedora project gains nothing by changing its well laid foundations to prevent further similar *uses* of fedora in the future. Cheers, -dmc

Now that is an viable userfriendly solution if allowed :) IF allowed +1 Is int use and hence bittorent becoming illegal now days even tho it's creater never for saw or at least "publicly addmited" to have seen it be misused and used to distribute illegal content ( guess the same thing goes with car manufactures and transporting and distributing drugs ) :) Best regards Johann B.

Can I assume that the same thing applies for CD's that would contain *extra packages* and respins? Ok. Somehow I totally missed that, any docs about this I can be redirected to So I can see test and try on noob user to do so, so I see how viable solution it is. we are talking about the first installation scene not after you reboot and go to "first boot" where you can do some additional things? Had noticed you could install extra packages setup repos and that from there.. Yes that has already been established many times.. ( and work being developed respins tools that will easy the work in doing so) . And also how many letters from Fedora name have to be remove so the naming is neutralized ( fedorians, eudora etc... ) And in the scenario where software is created and a year later less/more something is patent hence the software now breaks the patent what then? who's in right here the software or the patent? And if the source of the code is made available could not the patent holders read the source and close "infringing" part in their code that is if we are talking about code and it can be patent ( Yes my knowledge in this are equals to 0 or less, ignorance shining through :) some how my internal logic had made the assumption the same thing as in the rules and regulations that protect writers and their written work would apply to coders and their coded work as well ? Best regards. Johann B.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:46:59 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" <johannbg(a)hi.is&gt; wrote: You have the clay, and the molding tools. All we ask is that if you color outside the lines you call your work of art something other than Fedora. If your art is interesting, and we can legally reproduce it, maybe we will. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?

Jesse Keating wrote: I don't believe this is strictly true. I can't seem to find the correct link with the info from legal, but I'm 99.9% certain that if you find a way to put together an iso which a) has a complete, identifiable-as-such, copy of 'the fedora software' (which I'll just take as a blessed fedora iso.) and b) custom non-blessed patches and c) the user can select on boot/install whether or not to boot the pure blessed fedora version, or the patched fedora version with obvious messages that the patches are not blessed, then this type of composition may in fact use the fedora artwork, etc... Please don't make an uninformed response to this mail before reading the legal trademark guidlines which specifically mention this 'supplying patches with the blessed fedora that the user may clearly choose, or choose not to use at boot/install time'. (not a verbatim quote, as all the links in this message which held the new policy are now broken- http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-August/msg02287.html (another broken link) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines -dmc

Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote : My take on this (initially posted to the rpmfusion list) : "We should not. I think it's just not worth it, especially since it would have to be called something completely different, and include non trademarked artwork. What we need to do is get the feature to use add-on media at installation time working again in Fedora. I had made a proof of concept CD with freshrpms packages which could be used with a Fedora installation a while back, but this has been "broken" ever since anaconda switched to using yum as a backend (AFAIR). Work will be better spent on fixing Fedora, that way we can just provide an add-on CD which could be used at install time and provide extra categories to pick from in order to install codecs, programs, and of course enable rpmfusion in yum. FWIW, here is my "announcement" of the CD (it was for FC4) : http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2006-January/013758.html ...notice the absolute zero feedback, though :-(" Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) - Linux kernel 2.6.22.6-81.fc7 Load : 0.28 0.36 0.40

Rahul Sundaram wrote: How will it work with crediting the right peoples in such a spin and so on. mean this is not yet another linux distro it is Fedora with extra packages same thing diffrent themes logo name? Best regards Johann B. -- Johann B. Gudmundsson. RHCE,CCSA Unix System Engineer. IT Management. Reiknistofnun University of Iceland. Taeknigardi, Dunhaga 5. Email: johannbg(a)hi.is IS-107 Reykjavik. Phone: +354-525-4267 Iceland. Fax: +354-552-8801

Matthias Saou wrote: You still need to create the cd. You still need to provide the cd which my guess is cant be done on fedoraproject.org That would be the ideal solution that if you have internet connection you could getting it from there or just choose it in Anaconda ( User provided with some disclaimer accepts it, his responsibility viola ), Guess legal has problem with that other wise I guess it would have been implemented already.. Regarding adding more cd's or *additional cd's* I think is step backwards. ( Any one remembering happy multi floppy diskette time debian/slackware what was it around 10 -15 diskettes But then again I could be the only one who expirienced Bad Sectors through out the years. ) Best regards Johann B. -- Johann B. Gudmundsson. RHCE,CCSA Unix System Engineer. IT Management. Reiknistofnun University of Iceland. Taeknigardi, Dunhaga 5. Email: johannbg(a)hi.is IS-107 Reykjavik. Phone: +354-525-4267 Iceland. Fax: +354-552-8801

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 10:56 -0600, Lamont Peterson wrote: Well, except that at that point during the install, we have the CD mounted and so you can't unmount to swap CDs. Changing that probably means committing to partitioning changes sooner (currently, we delay them until right before packages install unless you need early swap) so that we can move the install image to the hard disk. And then there may be a little bit of subtlety in ensuring that the ordering of package installation ends up right. But it's mostly a matter of someone sitting down, writing some code and doing some testing. There are a lot of cases like the above where it is useful. Also cases where people only have sporadic network access. Or slower network access and get media from a friend. Or connect via something more esoteric that anaconda doesn't support setting up. So there's definitely value in doing the work Jeremy

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 16:09 -0600, Lamont Peterson wrote: The problem is that we have to mount and look at the additional CDs to get their metadata and know what packages are available there. And to do that, we have to transfer stage2 elsewhere. To RAM kind of sucks because it increases the memory requirements by the size of stage2 (~100M) in a case where we're going to need more memory for package metadata and dep solving. Hence, the hard drive, hence partitioning being committed sooner. Jeremy

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 19:19 -0600, Lamont Peterson wrote: The people most likely to want to use add-on discs are the same ones that _don't_ have over a gig of RAM in every machine they use. Jeremy

Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johannbg <at> hi.is> writes: Fedora naming is not your only worry if you want to do that. Non-GPL kernel modules are almost certainly a violation of the Linux kernel's GPL (version 2) license, especially when distributing them together with the kernel itself. I know some other distros get away with it, but that doesn't make it legal. If you want to know more about this issue, search the net, there have been numerous articles and flamewars written over that subject. Kevin Kofler