On 4/20/06, Max Spevack <mspevack(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: "Based on Fedora" Additionally, consider have a different "Fedora" logo that "based on Fedora" items can use to visually distinquish "based on" from "official" but is still clearly "fedora". You want both a distinquishable but agreed on text and iconic reference for derived works to use when making an association to fedora. -jef

On 4/20/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)j2solutions.net&gt; wrote: Things reviewed and blessed by the Fedora Board get access to the more restricted marks. As in a live-cd that the board reviews and blesses.. gets access to the more restricted marks and don't need to claim "based on". but can still claim "based on." A livecd thats been built from Core+Extras sources but not reviewed/blessed by the board must use "based on" and uses the less restricted mark. If Red Hat wants to ship an amalgum that doesn't get reviewed and blessed by the Fedora Board... then no.. they dont get to use the more restricted mark... neener neener neener. -jef

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 20:03 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote: That is no longer based on Fedora. That includes parts of Fedora, but adds to it, and thus cannot be claimed to be Fedora. Get the package in Extras (; -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

2006/4/20, Andre Nogueira <andre.nogueira.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt;: well that was exactly my question... what terms are "legal"... i am neither a lawyer nor do i want to consult one at this point :). regards, Rudolf Kastl

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 20:19 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote: No, because (as Max forgot to mention) the Based on Fedora must be based on the Binary packages, not rebuilds of the source packages. No published Binary, can't use it. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 14:29 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: Not to mention which, imagine the chaos that would ensue in the community support channels when the binaries don't match what's in the Fedora repositories. What if someone decides to rebuild fedora-release and point it to non-official repositories so updates are out of sync with Fedora? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 20:30 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote: IANAL, but as long as it isn't in the name of the product, or the logo of the product, I think in the documentation you can reference that it was built from or based on Fedora. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 15:12 -0400, Stephen Krenzel wrote: And I said I do believe you can claim your product is based on Fedora, but it can't have the Fedora Logo, nor use the Fedora name. We do need to come up with a script or such to strip out this stuff easily. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 02:09:02PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: What? That makes no logical sense. You're saying that something takes a _base_ of Fedora and builds on that base by adding additional packages is some way not _based_ on Fedora? -- Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:27:30PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: Ah, okay. And that makes perfect sense. :) -- Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 21:31 +0100, Andre Nogueira wrote: I don't agree:: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=based based adj 1: being derived from (usually followed by `on' or `upon'); "a film based on a best-selling novel" So in this sense, all of your examples are "based on Fedora". It seems that Jesse's clarifications are what's important here. Any distribution can say it is "based on Fedora" in its documentation, website, etc. They are restricted in their ability to use the Fedora Logos as part of their logo and Fedora *in their name*. As far as I can see, Max's proposal is how to relax these restrictions for distributions which consist entirely of Fedora Software (currently FC + FE; your #1 above) Keeping this in mind, I think "based on Fedora" is a point of confusion to those who would want to use "Based on Fedora" as part of their distro which contain packages from outside FC + FE. "Fedora KDExcellent" is a very close association with Fedora. It would be neat if projects similar to KUbuntu or EdUbuntu grew up in this namespace. The question would be, do you let this happen by giving everyone the ability to spin their one-off distributions as "Fedora Foo" and seeing which ones flourish? Or do you wait for one to flourish and then see if the project would like to be officially blessed with the "Fedora" cognomen? (Personally, I don't see this second approach working. Imagine that CentOS were based on Fedora instead of RHEL. Do you think they'd change their name to Fedora CentOS if we said that they'd proven their worth and we'd like to let them use it?) "KDExcellent, a Fedora Distribution" is a safe middle ground. It's a much closer association than "based on Fedora". But it implies that there are many separate Fedora Distributions and this one is no more canonical than them. It also puts "Fedora Core" on a separate level from these distributions. Personally I'd like to see the "Fedora KDExcellent" form. This puts people who want to form separate groupings of packages on an equal footing name-wise with "Fedora Core" which is a good thing for the community. "Fedora Foo Linux" is a name. "Foo, a Fedora Distribution" is a name and a description. It's much easier for a distribution to drop a description than to change a name if they are weighing the costs of being lazy and rush packaging their own versions of packages rather than getting them into Fedora Extras or working to maintain/fix the Fedora packages for everyone. -Toshio

I've seen a lot of suggestions here. But let's step back and look at the root problems. They are ... 1. The Fedora trademark, and the legal issues under what context people use it, especially in the context of both ... 2. The 100% Redistributable and "Free" guarantee that Red Hat(R), now Fedora(TM), releases have always guaranteed to consumers 3. The past success and infamy due to packaging non-redistributable or non-legally free packages, with software that actually can legally be packaged with non-redistribuable/non-free (not looking at the branding/trademark aspects). With that said, let me tell you my views ... A. Anaconda + Fedora Core/Extras Fedora Core + Fedora Extras are still Fedora Project redistributions. Not only should stock logos be allowed, but we should encourage neither changes or rebranding for these CDs -- except for maybe "Unofficial." That includes Live CDs, as long as 100% of the software they contain are _unmodified_ from Core + Extras, and only boot-time changes/scripts are made. B. Anaconda + Fedora Core/Extras + 100% Redistributable Red Hat(R) Linux gained mass popularity as a base for other distributions because of its 100% Redistributable focus. We should still acknowledge redistributions with 100% redistributable components (and no legal binds), but just accomodate the legal changes required. An alternative logo and disclaimer accomplishes this. C. Anaconda + Fedora Core/Extras + Non-Redistributable On the flip side, Red Hat(R) Linux gained great infamy (and lots of corresponding rhetoric from the community, like from Cheapbytes) because of many vendors *COUGH*Cobalt*COUGH*Sun*COUGH* who wrongly took the goodwill of Red Hat(R) and made it a serious trademark/public domain issue. Let's make no mistake, these distributions will still happen with Fedora -- especially if "B" becomes popular (as it seems it is). Omitting the trademark issues, the software licenses on the packages do legally allow them to be bundled with non-GPL/100% redistributable software. So we _need_ to _deal_ with the trademark issue once and for all. With all that said, here's what I suggest ... i) The Anaconda tools should be modified to include 3 additional logo sets as standard: A. Custom Fedora(TM) B. Unofficial Fedora(TM) Third Party C. No-name Redistribution Let's face it, many people don't like to take the time to customize Anaconda. People are going to abuse the trademark. We need to make it as easy as a script to change the logos from "Fedora(TM)" to something else. If we do offer that, people _will_ do it. If we don't, we'll run into the same trademark hell Red Hat did, because 99% of repackagers aren't going to take the time to rebrand the installer. If you give people the tools to "be legal," they will use them. ii) Standard legal disclaimers Correspondingly to i), we need to come up with standard legal disclaimers for A, B and C. These are just templates that are the defaults, just like the logos and branding. Most importantly, if you _ignore_ "C," we'll just get more people brand "C" in the same way as "A"/"B". We _need_ to address _all_3_. iii) "Click-through" Anaconda tools I think the way to solve this is in the Anaconda tools themselves. When you run any Anaconda tools, you have to create an _explicit_ configuration file that states whether it's A, B or C. If it doesn't exist, Anaconda spits out a complaint to create one, or run a script that creates the settings file for them (prompts them for a few questions). IANAL, but from a legal perspective, if you give someone a tool that notifies them with a click through or they have to run an explicit command, and they _still_ use the trademark _incorrectly_ -- I'd say you've got them by the balls. They have no excuse or ignorance argument. But IANAL. -- 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.

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 20:03 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote: Due to trademark dilution, I can't see any way a derivative product that is less than 100% Fedora-derived could use the marks at all. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/

#001 For the second one, we can propose a different fedora-logos-XXX.rpm. Thus as it's said here http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html there wont corruption for mere deletion of certain files. If we don't propose another fedora-logos-XXX.rpm, guidelines will be enough. #002 Last time, for Kadischi I came up with some Legal stuffs due to some requests on the matter. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal Its contents are what we are proposing for the moment. #003 To my guess, these are some areas of thoughts we must be working on for branding: *built from - Fedora Core, Extras Packages only - Fedora Core, Extras Packages with own packages which are abiding Fedora Policies. ---> ask to push to Extras - Fedora Core, Extras Packages with propriety softwares ---> I know Livna is not officially supported. but at least we might as them to push their propriety packages over there. But still it's against Fedora Policy. - from sources provided by fedora *Derived From Fedora * a fork of Fedora #004, would there be special marks for product of livecd tool (kadischi) provided by the Fedora Project? If yes, I should work on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal as well. Chitlesh -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 13:36 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: A related thing to drive forward is to make it trivially easy for others to rebrand Fedora when they are creating derivatives. Things that need to be changed - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/Branding Derived distributions http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DerivedDistributions Rahul

Dear all, Well, for this kind of distributions we could create a special commitee who will be relevant to say if these ones could be defined as being compatible with the requirement of the original distribution . Maybe we could create a label like "Fedora core 5 approved" or "Fedora core 5 based" Just an idea. Best Reagards Fred -----Original Message----- From: fedora-marketing-list-bounces(a)redhat.com on behalf of Max Spevack Sent: Thu 20/04/2006 19:36 To: fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com Subject: Fedora derivatives branding discussion Howdy folks, The Fedora board needs help with a policy decision. As Fedora evolves, we'll be seeing more and more custom distributions that are spun from the Fedora Universe of packages. Kadischi-based Live CDs are a good example. We'd like to be able to allow these distributions to use the Fedora name -- and we've got tentative buy-in from legal to do it -- so long as the distros are built entirely from Fedora (Core+Extras) packages. So. How should the Fedora brand be used in such cases? Let's say, for example, that Rex Dieter builds a minimal Fedora distro that has KDE and no GNOME -- and he wants to call it "KDExcellent". He also wants people to know that it's derived from official Fedora packages. Should we let him call it: + Fedora KDExcellent? + KDExcellent, based on Fedora? + KDExcellent, a Fedora distribution? Whatever policy we come up with now, we'll be stuck with for quite a while -- so we could use some help. Thanks in advance for your ideas. --Max -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list