I have an idea¹ for creating a label for experimental/innovative work within the Fedora Project which is not ready to be (or maybe is never intended to be) Official Fedora. For example, release engineering wants to make sure that all bits that are "official" go through releng processes — which is totally reasonable, and helps support the high quality people have come to expect from the Fedora name. At the same time, we have a charter to be leaders, and to do that we need a space where we can be more flexible.
The secondary mark (Fedora Remix) can provide an avenue for this, but it's made for work done entirely outside of the Fedora project umbrella. I'd like some way to label projects which are done by Fedora developers using Fedora resources and in line with the Fedora foundations but which are not part of the traditional OS or infrastructure with all of the expectations those things bring.
From a legal standpoint: a) does this make sense and b) what would we need to do make it happen?
1. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedorapro...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:10:26 -0400 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I have an idea¹ for creating a label for experimental/innovative work within the Fedora Project which is not ready to be (or maybe is never intended to be) Official Fedora. For example, release engineering wants to make sure that all bits that are "official" go through releng processes — which is totally reasonable, and helps support the high quality people have come to expect from the Fedora name. At the same time, we have a charter to be leaders, and to do that we need a space where we can be more flexible.
The secondary mark (Fedora Remix) can provide an avenue for this, but it's made for work done entirely outside of the Fedora project umbrella. I'd like some way to label projects which are done by Fedora developers using Fedora resources and in line with the Fedora foundations but which are not part of the traditional OS or infrastructure with all of the expectations those things bring.
FYI, we have been talking about this sort of thing in Fedora Infrastructure as well. A way to allow community run/supported services that don't have the high process standards as our normal supported services. We tenatively decided to reuse our 'fedoracommunity.org' domain for community services (then it would be easy to see if a service had that kind of url to have different support expectations).
kevin
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:10:26PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
I have an idea¹ for creating a label for experimental/innovative work within the Fedora Project which is not ready to be (or maybe is never intended to be) Official Fedora. For example, release engineering wants to make sure that all bits that are "official" go through releng processes — which is totally reasonable, and helps support the high quality people have come to expect from the Fedora name. At the same time, we have a charter to be leaders, and to do that we need a space where we can be more flexible.
The secondary mark (Fedora Remix) can provide an avenue for this, but it's made for work done entirely outside of the Fedora project umbrella. I'd like some way to label projects which are done by Fedora developers using Fedora resources and in line with the Fedora foundations but which are not part of the traditional OS or infrastructure with all of the expectations those things bring.
From a legal standpoint: a) does this make sense and b) what would we need to do make it happen?
If the idea is to have a new secondary mark - I would suggest discussing with the Red Hat legal team. If not, I'm not sure this is really a legal issue (other than in the sense of refining what 'Fedora' means).
Richard
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:15:24AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:10:26PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
I have an idea¹ for creating a label for experimental/innovative work within the Fedora Project which is not ready to be (or maybe is never intended to be) Official Fedora. For example, release engineering wants to make sure that all bits that are "official" go through releng processes — which is totally reasonable, and helps support the high quality people have come to expect from the Fedora name. At the same time, we have a charter to be leaders, and to do that we need a space where we can be more flexible.
The secondary mark (Fedora Remix) can provide an avenue for this, but it's made for work done entirely outside of the Fedora project umbrella. I'd like some way to label projects which are done by Fedora developers using Fedora resources and in line with the Fedora foundations but which are not part of the traditional OS or infrastructure with all of the expectations those things bring.
From a legal standpoint: a) does this make sense and b) what would we need to do make it happen?
If the idea is to have a new secondary mark - I would suggest discussing with the Red Hat legal team. If not, I'm not sure this is really a legal issue (other than in the sense of refining what 'Fedora' means).
AIUI this was about being able to use the *primary* marks in a controlled way, but Matthew can correct me if I'm wrong.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:58:09AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
discussing with the Red Hat legal team. If not, I'm not sure this is really a legal issue (other than in the sense of refining what 'Fedora' means).
AIUI this was about being able to use the *primary* marks in a controlled way, but Matthew can correct me if I'm wrong.
I freely admit to being unclear on the exact legal meaning there. "Fedora Remix" is the current secondary mark, and also clearly includes the primary "Fedora" trademark.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 01:46:05PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:58:09AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
discussing with the Red Hat legal team. If not, I'm not sure this is really a legal issue (other than in the sense of refining what 'Fedora' means).
AIUI this was about being able to use the *primary* marks in a controlled way, but Matthew can correct me if I'm wrong.
I freely admit to being unclear on the exact legal meaning there. "Fedora Remix" is the current secondary mark, and also clearly includes the primary "Fedora" trademark.
Because "Fedora Remix" is an inseparable unit, I wouldn't recommend thinking of it this way. They are two different trademarks.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:15:24AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
From a legal standpoint: a) does this make sense and b) what would we need to do make it happen?
If the idea is to have a new secondary mark - I would suggest discussing with the Red Hat legal team. If not, I'm not sure this is really a legal issue (other than in the sense of refining what 'Fedora' means).
My preliminary questions are: a) do we _need_ a new secondary mark for this, or is it something we can just declare without involving that; and b) in either case, would we need to modify the existing trademark guidelines or could this be an additive guideline?
On 07/19/2016 11:13 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:15:24AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
From a legal standpoint: a) does this make sense and b) what would we need to do make it happen?
If the idea is to have a new secondary mark - I would suggest discussing with the Red Hat legal team. If not, I'm not sure this is really a legal issue (other than in the sense of refining what 'Fedora' means).
My preliminary questions are: a) do we _need_ a new secondary mark for this, or is it something we can just declare without involving that; and b) in either case, would we need to modify the existing trademark guidelines or could this be an additive guideline?
I think you either need to use the Fedora Remix mark or go through the process of creating a new secondary mark, because you're talking about distributing "things" that are marked in a way that implies that Fedora made them, even if they're not at the same supported level.
I don't think its a problem to have Fedora people making Remixes.
If you create a new secondary mark, the existing trademark guidelines would need to be amended to reflect it.
~tom
== Red Hat
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:18:58PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
I think you either need to use the Fedora Remix mark or go through the process of creating a new secondary mark, because you're talking about distributing "things" that are marked in a way that implies that Fedora made them, even if they're not at the same supported level.
I don't think its a problem to have Fedora people making Remixes.
If you create a new secondary mark, the existing trademark guidelines would need to be amended to reflect it.
Thanks Tom. I'll start exploring that, then, because I definitely want something "closer" than Remix implies. Particularly, I'd like to keep some of the guarantees that Remix does not provide, like "100% free and open source software that is legally redistributable everywhere in the world". It also might apply to services, or maybe even things which contain _zero_ traditional-official-Fedora software, both of which I think would be straining the idea of "Remix".
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:18:58PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
I think you either need to use the Fedora Remix mark or go through the process of creating a new secondary mark, because you're talking about distributing "things" that are marked in a way that implies that Fedora made them, even if they're not at the same supported level.
I don't think its a problem to have Fedora people making Remixes.
If you create a new secondary mark, the existing trademark guidelines would need to be amended to reflect it.
Thanks Tom. I'll start exploring that, then, because I definitely want something "closer" than Remix implies. Particularly, I'd like to keep some of the guarantees that Remix does not provide, like "100% free and open source software that is legally redistributable everywhere in the world". It also might apply to services, or maybe even things which contain _zero_ traditional-official-Fedora software, both of which I think would be straining the idea of "Remix".
Most people wouldn't create another secondary mark for that. They'd come up with a name for the project and simply slap "Beta" at the end of it. It's a pretty typical convention at this point, and people are likely to be less confused than having 3 "official" Fedora marks that all mean different things. Particularly if the two "secondary" marks have any overlap.
josh
-
Josh Boyer -
Kevin Fenzi -
Matthew Miller -
Paul W. Frields -
Richard Fontana -
Tom Callaway