On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 08:50 -0700, Bryan J. Smith wrote: I agree that obvious, easy tools will cause people to "do the right thing" most of the time. Are we still discussing the policy that those tools need to fulfill, though? I have one new question: How will RawHide/FE-devel packages fit into this scheme? RawHide is a baby eater so a redistribution of Fedora that uses these packages could well be less stable than usual. OTOH, sometimes fixes for problems only appear in RawHide or take quite some time to be pushed back to the previous Core release. So the, "Fedora Bleeding GNOME Linux", "Fedora AIGLX Linux", or "Fedora r300 LiveCD Linux" would pretty much have to pull from RawHide. (Note that only one of my three examples would be targetted at RawHide long term. The others would be folded back into mainline in FC+1 or FC+2. I think a lot of RawHide targetted redistributions would be this way; short-term RawHide, long-term either the need goes away or they retarget against a Fedora Core branch after the newer packages go in.) Another issue is that RawHide binary packages will disappear after a few new pushes so the versions of packages these distributions are based on won't be available from official Fedora Repositories anymore. The same thing could potentially happen with Fedora Updates, though, which I am assuming would be included in the "FC + FE" package set. I started this post thinking RawHide should be excluded but now I'm more divided.... -Toshio

On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 08:50 -0700, Bryan J. Smith wrote: You and others have raised some really good technical issues. I'd like to add my $.02 on how I'd like to see Fedora branding, with an eye toward a more solid view of what Fedora is: * Fedora Core: Only ISOs from a Fedora repository (with matching sha1sum) can use the Fedora name, official logo and label on redistributed media. Updates, extra packages, etc. can go on separate media. * Built from Fedora: Anyone building a custom distro from Fedora (anaconda plus binaries) can add some official tag line like "Built from Fedora" or "Fedora Inside" and a different Fedora-like logo on the packaging. No use of the Fedora name should be allowed in a new distro/live CD name. No official blessing. Fedora Project should reserve the right to tell someone to stop using the tag-line/2nd logo if they are doing something evil. I don't think anyone should be required to remove Fedora logos from inside their new distro/live CD. Apache, OpenOffice.org, GNOME and other projects leave their logos in when their software is used in different distros. Why not Fedora? It's advertising for the project, without official blessing (or responsibility). Just don't let others package their product as "the" Fedora Core. (I apologize if my tone sounds too definitive above. I'm actually quite flexible in the details. But I want to illustrate the kind of firm language I'd like to see come out of the Fedora Project on this issue.) Bottom line on my opinion :) 1) Make it easy to redistribute and mark the real Fedora Core as official. 2) Make it easy to spin your own distro, with a nod to Fedora, but no official blessing or responsibility from Fedora. -- Chris Negus

Andre Nogueira <andre.nogueira.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: It's more than that. It's a legal issue with regards to trademark enforcement. No distribution was more widely used (and misused) than Red Hat(R) Linux. Virtually every other distro out there, sans maybe Debian, has _never_ run into the same level of proliferation as Red Hat(R) Linux did. Even Novell is either going to have to lay down some anal rules on "SuSE(R)" or find the trademark could become public domain (or maybe they don't care?). This is the primo #1 reason why Fedora(TM) was created by Red Hat(R) in the first place. No matter how they clarified the usage for Cheapbytes and others, their goodwill got raped by Cobalt/Sun and then they got rhetoric from Cheapbytes and others. No good dead goes unpunished. We need to not only give an avenue for B) those 100% redistributable derivatives, but those inevitable (and unavoiable) C) non-100% redistributable derivatives. You do that technically with the Anaconda tools themselves -- accomodating B and C. And you do it legally by differentiating between B & C as well. Again, I suggest ... B) Unofficial Fedora(TM) Third Party [Distribution] C) No-name [Distribution] Anything that is a direct FC+FE equivalent or subset can be called "Fedora(TM)," although having Anaconda identify it as a "Custom" build might be nice to let people know it's not the Official. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith(a)ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- I'm a Democrat. No wait, I'm a Republican. Hmm, it seems I'm just whatever someone disagrees with.