My confusion, and I'm hoping to clear up other people's confusion here as well, stemmed from what I believe was a historical guideline which forbid the _inclusion_ of fedora/rh copyrighed artwork and trademarks in a derivative distribution.

Hello, Should I consider this as solved/answered ?

Nevertheless, I remind that if Kadischi/Legal wiki page isn't clear enough, please say so and propose how it can be improved.

If you are having problem understanding a kadischi related wiki page, then maybe somebody else will too. So let's work together and reduce confusion. Chitlesh On 4/17/06, Jane Dogalt <jdogalt(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: > --- Jane Dogalt <jdogalt(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: > > > --- Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal > > > > I hate to be obtuse here Chitlesh, but seeing as how finally someone (Chris) > > clearly has _precisely_ the same question as I do, I need to reiterate that > > your supplied legal link does not answer my question. > > Ok. I _think_ that reading the bottom most section of the wiki page, that the > answer to my question is clearly "Yes, no problem". > > And especially now that I read the link to the redhat/fedora trademark > guidelines, which I believe has changed signifgantly in the past 2 years, I > think the answer is really "absolutely, no problem". > > My confusion, and I'm hoping to clear up other people's confusion here as well, > stemmed from what I believe was a historical guideline which forbid the > _inclusion_ of fedora/rh copyrighed artwork and trademarks in a derivative > distribution. In which case, merely having the fedora-logos.rpm files would > make something unredistributable. Perhaps this was never the case. Certainly > judging by the succinctness of the current trademark guidelines, and the > following quote, it appears that my #2 case, and Question: below, are > absolutely not a problem- > > "Red Hat does not permit or consent to any use of its trademarks in any manner > that is likely to cause confusion by implying association with or sponsorship > by Red Hat." > > Although the more specific question is- If people see a fedora logo on a gdm > login screen on an iso called jane_dogalt_is_the_coolest.iso, would that "be > likely to cause confusion by implying association with or sponsorship by Red > Hat"? > > For my own purposes, I still think it will be wise for my own project to have a > post install script which removes the fedora-logos.rpm package, so that users > of my output needn't worry about splitting that legal hair. > > -jdog > > > > > > > I think in the archive post I referenced, the situation of #2, is very > > simple, > > and I can't seem to get a straight answer from fedora. Can you please > > specifically answer my question in the above Kadischi Legal Wiki, i.e. > > > > Question: If I as fedora/kadischi user, produce a livecd with kadischi (say > > nothing more than the supplied minimal.ks and a post install script that adds > > a > > motd of "jane dogalt is the coolest"), am I legally allowed to post that on > > my > > own website for mass distribution under the title > > "jane_dogalt_is_the_coolest.iso"? > > > > I.e. due to the default behavior of kadischi, fedora-logos*.rpm will be > > installed. Is that a problem? If so would simply removing that rpm in a > > post > > install script resolve the distribution problem? > > > > I don't think I can specify the question any clearer than that. And I for > > the > > life of me don't see an answer to that in the wiki-kadischi-legal you > > referenced. > > > > -jdog > > > > > > > > On 4/17/06, Chris Negus <cnegus(a)rucls.net&gt; wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 23:29 -0500, Jasper O'neal Hartline wrote: > > > > > Jane Dogalt wrote: > > > > > Now this is really strange, Kadischi is a tool to yes, to create LiveCD > > > > > media.. > > > > > but to create Fedora Core CD media. Although Rahul mentions running > > > > > Anaconda in Debian > > > > > may be possible, I don't think right now is the time to be focusing any > > > > > efforts on running Kadischi > > > > > on everything but Fedora Core. Likewise in this same respect, Kadischi > > > > > shouldn't be focusing > > > > > on allowing users to build thier own "distribution". It is a LiveCD > > tool > > > > > not a distribution tool. > > > > > > > > Actually, I think this is a good point. The Fedora project still hasn't, > > > > in my mind, clearly stated how to legally use its logos and trademarks. > > > > The Wiki says to make formal requests to use the logo. I've made two > > > > such requests and have not gotten a response back. > > > > > > > > So the question is not whether or not we want to help people build their > > > > own distributions from Kadischi. The question is how can someone legally > > > > redistribute "anything" built with Kadischi? If you change the splash > > > > screen or rebuild a package from source, is the resulting CD still > > > > Fedora? If not, do we legally have to remove references to Fedora? > > > > > > > > -- Chris Negus > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Fedora-livecd-list mailing list > > > > Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com > > > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://clunixchit.blogspot.com > > > > > > -- > > > Fedora-livecd-list mailing list > > > Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com > > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > -- > Fedora-livecd-list mailing list > Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list > -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com -- Fedora-livecd-list mailing list Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list

Le mardi 18 avril 2006 à 01:35 -0700, Jane Dogalt a écrit : > The root of the issue is- > > If I create output with kadischi, named mylivelinux.iso, which boots using the > default fedora logos on the graphical boot (and gdm default background, and > gnome default background), then would I be in danger of "being likely to cause > confusion by implying association with or sponsorship by Red Hat"? Yes because one of the big (huge) time consuming tasks I have planned into my liveCD is modifying all of that.

all of the fedora logo stuff in place and have the machine boot into an "epiaix liveCD" where it is clearly written that the OS is fedora with all VIA epia options turned on and a specific kernel. Personalised liveCDs _ARE_ fedora but either a subset or with additional features added in. This is almost more complicated than hacking personalised rpms... =:-D</joke>

While the fedora trademark guidelines seem quite explicit that redhat has no intention to answer questions on the matter, you seem willing, so here is one-

For the purposes of the following citation, are fedora logos considered "Redhat's trademarks"? Or are they trademarks that belong to a foundation that until very recently was entirely seperate from redhat, yet whose trademark guidelines seem intertwined with redhats (i.e. yeah, I'm a bit confused)

"Red Hat does not permit or consent to any use of its trademarks in any manner that is likely to cause confusion by implying association with or sponsorship by Red Hat" The root of the issue is- If I create output with kadischi, named mylivelinux.iso, which boots using the default fedora logos on the graphical boot (and gdm default background, and gnome default background), then would I be in danger of "being likely to cause confusion by implying association with or sponsorship by Red Hat"? Now mind you, from the rest of the page that contained that quote, the implication is that redhat will not answer any questions or make the issue any clearer. But if you want to give it a shot Chitlesh, I'm all ears and I'd be grateful. -jdog > > If you are having problem understanding a kadischi related wiki page, > then maybe somebody else will too. So let's work together and reduce > confusion. > > Chitlesh > > On 4/17/06, Jane Dogalt <jdogalt(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: > > --- Jane Dogalt <jdogalt(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > --- Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal > > > > > > I hate to be obtuse here Chitlesh, but seeing as how finally someone > (Chris) > > > clearly has _precisely_ the same question as I do, I need to reiterate > that > > > your supplied legal link does not answer my question. > > > > Ok. I _think_ that reading the bottom most section of the wiki page, that > the > > answer to my question is clearly "Yes, no problem". > > > > And especially now that I read the link to the redhat/fedora trademark > > guidelines, which I believe has changed signifgantly in the past 2 years, I > > think the answer is really "absolutely, no problem". > > > > My confusion, and I'm hoping to clear up other people's confusion here as > well, > > stemmed from what I believe was a historical guideline which forbid the > > _inclusion_ of fedora/rh copyrighed artwork and trademarks in a derivative > > distribution. In which case, merely having the fedora-logos.rpm files > would > > make something unredistributable. Perhaps this was never the case. > Certainly > > judging by the succinctness of the current trademark guidelines, and the > > following quote, it appears that my #2 case, and Question: below, are > > absolutely not a problem- > > > > "Red Hat does not permit or consent to any use of its trademarks in any > manner > > that is likely to cause confusion by implying association with or > sponsorship > > by Red Hat." > > > > Although the more specific question is- If people see a fedora logo on a > gdm > > login screen on an iso called jane_dogalt_is_the_coolest.iso, would that > "be > > likely to cause confusion by implying association with or sponsorship by > Red > > Hat"? > > > > For my own purposes, I still think it will be wise for my own project to > have a > > post install script which removes the fedora-logos.rpm package, so that > users > > of my output needn't worry about splitting that legal hair. > > > > -jdog > > > > > > > > > > > > I think in the archive post I referenced, the situation of #2, is very > > > simple, > > > and I can't seem to get a straight answer from fedora. Can you please > > > specifically answer my question in the above Kadischi Legal Wiki, i.e. > > > > > > Question: If I as fedora/kadischi user, produce a livecd with kadischi > (say > > > nothing more than the supplied minimal.ks and a post install script that > adds > > > a > > > motd of "jane dogalt is the coolest"), am I legally allowed to post that > on > > > my > > > own website for mass distribution under the title > > > "jane_dogalt_is_the_coolest.iso"? > > > > > > I.e. due to the default behavior of kadischi, fedora-logos*.rpm will be > > > installed. Is that a problem? If so would simply removing that rpm in a > > > post > > > install script resolve the distribution problem? > > > > > > I don't think I can specify the question any clearer than that. And I > for > > > the > > > life of me don't see an answer to that in the wiki-kadischi-legal you > > > referenced. > > > > > > -jdog > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/17/06, Chris Negus <cnegus(a)rucls.net&gt; wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 23:29 -0500, Jasper O'neal Hartline wrote: > > > > > > Jane Dogalt wrote: > > > > > > Now this is really strange, Kadischi is a tool to yes, to create > LiveCD > > > > > > media.. > > > > > > but to create Fedora Core CD media. Although Rahul mentions running > > > > > > Anaconda in Debian > > > > > > may be possible, I don't think right now is the time to be focusing > any > > > > > > efforts on running Kadischi > > > > > > on everything but Fedora Core. Likewise in this same respect, > Kadischi > > > > > > shouldn't be focusing > > > > > > on allowing users to build thier own "distribution". It is a LiveCD > > > tool > > > > > > not a distribution tool. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think this is a good point. The Fedora project still > hasn't, > > > > > in my mind, clearly stated how to legally use its logos and > trademarks. > > > > > The Wiki says to make formal requests to use the logo. I've made two > > > > > such requests and have not gotten a response back. > > > > > > > > > > So the question is not whether or not we want to help people build > their > > > > > own distributions from Kadischi. The question is how can someone > legally > > > > > redistribute "anything" built with Kadischi? If you change the splash > > > > > screen or rebuild a package from source, is the resulting CD still > > > > > Fedora? If not, do we legally have to remove references to Fedora? > > > > > > > > > > -- Chris Negus > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Fedora-livecd-list mailing list > > > > > Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com > > > > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://clunixchit.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Fedora-livecd-list mailing list > > > > Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com > > > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > -- > > Fedora-livecd-list mailing list > > Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list > > > > > -- > http://clunixchit.blogspot.com > > -- > Fedora-livecd-list mailing list > Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- Fedora-livecd-list mailing list Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list

http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html Publishing And Marketing Fedora™ Software That Has Been Modified 4. You must modify the files identified as FEDORA-LOGOS and ANACONDA-IMAGES so as to remove all use of images containing the "Fedora" trademark. Note that mere deletion of these files may corrupt the software.

I sat down and read the docs carefully

Chitlesh, Thank you for your answers here. Unfortunately, I think you have confirmed what I have suspected all along, but which I thought needed to be spelled out. I.e. *** There is a very limited subset of customizations a kadischi user may make to their output, and still be 'legally' allowed to redistribute their output. Examples include- Including forbidden items, like nvidia drivers, mp3 support, etc. Doing things that are "hateful or stupid" in redhat or fedora's subjective opinion.

And I suspect from a 'legal' point of view, basically anything that goes any distance beyond changing the package selection from purely within the core and extras repository. Because the instant you do anything complicated like adding your own package that hasn't vetted the core/extras quality control inclusion process, you are releasing a piece of software whose quality will reflect on the fedora name, due to implicit association. Certainly if (a) default fedora boot/background logos/images/trademarks are left in place. And even to a lesser extent, if the fedora-logos and anaconda images packages are left in place (am I missing anything?). ***

I am harping on this, because I think the issue confirms my need (and I think it would vastly benefit the kadischi user community as well) for a simple post install script which optionally makes the resulting distribution "clean of any implied association or sponsorship by redhat or fedora".

I'm hoping such a script isn't too terribly more complicated than rpm -e'ing fedora-logos and anaconda-images. A while back I saw all the .svg things in there, and was worried that it would be hard to replace those with 'dummy' items , but I tried out inkscape last night, and was truly amazed at how cool that tool is.

This seems clear, in that leaving the fedora name in the graphical boot sequence is in my mind _implicit_ association. As opposed to putting an iso on a website and saying "this is fedora linux: jdog live version", which would be _explicit_ association. But if my interpretation there is correct, then it doesn't seem there is an actual need for the post-install cleanup script mentioned below (there is no need, but it still might be a nice option). So Greg, can you clear it up for me? Can I install mp3 support, rewrite the bootscripts so that they work for me, but generally make the distro look broken and like a piece of crap for most other people because I didn't invest any time quality-controlling my changes, leaving in the fedora graphics during graphical boot and default desktop background, and then post the iso as jdog.iso advertised as "jane dogalt's live OS"? Would it make any difference if in addition to the above, on my website, I called the distribution a "livecd derived from fedora core 5"?

Hold it, hold it, hold it. Responses inline.

The policy we're aiming for: if it's all Fedora stuff, you can use the Fedora name. If it isn't, you can't. Period.

Hold it, hold it, hold it. Responses inline. On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Jane Dogalt wrote: > Chitlesh, > > And I suspect from a 'legal' point of view, basically anything that goes > any distance beyond changing the package selection from purely within > the core and extras repository. Because the instant you do anything > complicated like adding your own package that hasn't vetted the > core/extras quality control inclusion process, you are releasing a piece > of software whose quality will reflect on the fedora name, due to > implicit association. Certainly if (a) default fedora boot/background > logos/images/trademarks are left in place. And even to a lesser extent, > if the fedora-logos and anaconda images packages are left in place (am I > missing anything?). *** We're not the least bit worried about implicit association. Not at all. It's free software. The only thing we're worried about is *explicit* association. That's why we protect the marks themselves so rigorously.

I strongly agree. I think forcing people to remove trademarks will lose a lot of "you can do this with Fedora technology" good PR. It will remove the Fedora presence from live CDs made by good citizens who want to showcase their own applications (and probably spout good words about Fedora in the process).

From an end user perspective, I'd like to see a final word on the Kadischi project stating that kadischi users can make isos and keep Fedora logos and trademarks intact...even when we include our proprietary kernel drivers and software.

We put our own software and drivers under /usr on the DVDs and your logos are plainly visible. In the past we have been proud to say we use Fedora for development and release. A lot of people have tried Fedora after seeing our demos. Does Fedora treat a bootable hard drive image and a bootable iso differently? When are you going to enforce on hard drives? I have the NVIDIA driver and the euro MP3 package added to my home machine...as well as a bunch of proprietary. Do I have to remove all your logos from my hard drive install?

Why is the iso so different? Are you planning to use DRM to insure only core/extras are installed if logos and trademarks are present?