Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > >> Bryan Kearney wrote: >> >>> In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not >>> provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the >>> kickstart file >>> >>> >> We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as >> of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are >> all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible >> for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!" message when >> you boot up. >> > Wouldn't this make sense to do, though? Especially seeing as how the > name "Fedora" is part of the trademark. > > I'm CC:'ing the Fedora Spins list for other people that might show interest in this discussion. To me it doesn't make sense removing fedora-release from a downstream distribution and then still say "based on Fedora" or "Fedora derivative". This, in my opinion, should not be a requirement. I'd like to enable people to do it anyway, with the click of a mouse, but it's not that simple at this point. Fwiw the Fedora Spin SIG only requires new spin concepts that do not yet have Board Approval to exclude fedora-logos from their package manifest. Requiring anything more then that also involves more work for the spin requester/maintainer (and a little more for the Spin SIG as well). How we handle fedora-release being the cause for "Welcome to (...)" is also a thread on -devel, and afaic is a cosmetic thing for downstream distributions, not a requirement from Fedora (IMO). Taking this a little further, the trademark policy can simply not require a downstream distribution to remove all occurrences of the Fedora trademark (as a string) from the entire system. Although I'd like to enable them to do so, it's simply not scalable to keep track of where the Fedora name might occur in a package name, file name or file contents. Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind drinking my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-) Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/NewTrademarkGuidelines _______________________________________________ Fedora-spins mailing list Fedora-spins(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-spins

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>> Bryan Kearney wrote:

> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark > policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you > hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it > upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session > (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same > might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare > used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) +1 This sounds really reasonable! If this would be well defined and then added to the trademark policy, it would be, in my opinion, a real improvement.

Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> Bryan Kearney wrote: >>> In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not >>> provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the >>> kickstart file >>> >> We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as >> of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are >> all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible >> for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!" message when >> you boot up. > > Wouldn't this make sense to do, though? Especially seeing as how the > name "Fedora" is part of the trademark. > I'm CC:'ing the Fedora Spins list for other people that might show interest in this discussion. To me it doesn't make sense removing fedora-release from a downstream distribution and then still say "based on Fedora" or "Fedora derivative". This, in my opinion, should not be a requirement. I'd like to enable people to do it anyway, with the click of a mouse, but it's not that simple at this point.

Fwiw the Fedora Spin SIG only requires new spin concepts that do not yet have Board Approval to exclude fedora-logos from their package manifest. Requiring anything more then that also involves more work for the spin requester/maintainer (and a little more for the Spin SIG as well). How we handle fedora-release being the cause for "Welcome to (...)" is also a thread on -devel, and afaic is a cosmetic thing for downstream distributions, not a requirement from Fedora (IMO).

Taking this a little further, the trademark policy can simply not require a downstream distribution to remove all occurrences of the Fedora trademark (as a string) from the entire system. Although I'd like to enable them to do so, it's simply not scalable to keep track of where the Fedora name might occur in a package name, file name or file contents.

Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind drinking my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-)

On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:19 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark >> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you >> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it >> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session >> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same >> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare >> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) >> >> Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind drinking >> my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-) > This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of > convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be > working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy > for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. Sorry to reply to myself. I wanted to make it doubly clear that I'm *only* talking about spins that use non-Fedora bits. The barrier for spins using only Fedora bits should be as low as possible.

Paul W. Frields wrote: Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other distributions to use or derive from.

> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark >>> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you >>> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it >>> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session >>> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same >>> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare >>> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) >>> >> This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of >> convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be >> working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy >> for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. >> > Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right > terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that > matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to > rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing > fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other > distributions to use or derive from. I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would think that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that external space. This is just a preliminary thought.

Heck... why limit to demos? It could be that someone releases an open source Alfresco appliance for real use.

Paul W. Frields wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>>> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark >>>> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you >>>> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it >>>> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session >>>> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same >>>> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare >>>> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) >>>> >>> This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of >>> convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be >>> working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy >>> for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. >>> >> Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right >> terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that >> matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to >> rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing >> fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other >> distributions to use or derive from. > > I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB > case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely > outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material > there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would think > that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would > affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that > external space. This is just a preliminary thought. We give them the powser to build any packages into the live-usb and appliances. So I would sugest that any trademark solution address the idea that friends of ferdora will be build these and we want them to say "I built this on Fedora" but not "This is fedora"