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
FYI, this is a discussion that started on the ISV SIG mailing list.
-Jeroen
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
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@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:
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.
Yeah! +1
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).
...and I'm happy that's the way it is :)
The Spin SIG already helped to simplify things significantly. So let's not make it more complicated than we need to do. Just let me cite Jeff, who stated some time ago on devel-list:
Fact 0: We want people to build quality spins. Fact 1: our spin creation tools are make it dirt simple to create spins, but we still need a best-practices approach with human review to ensure quality. Fact 2: We do not have the resource to build and host every possible spin that the community is interested in building.
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.
I mean, we're not going to build the next CentOS or anything like this, are we? Just take the folks there as an example: They need weeks or even months for rebuilding the OS. Maybe this example isn't really fitting here... but I agree with Jeroen - it might be almost impossible to wipe the name Fedora from the whole distribution just for respinning it.
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.
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 ;-)
/me gotta run for a cup of coffee, too ;)
Best Regards, Sebastian Dziallas
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/NewTrademarkGuidelines
Fedora-spins mailing list Fedora-spins@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-spins
Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Bryan Kearney wrote:
<SNIP>
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.
So.. I kicked this off on the ISV list, and here was the original scenario.
<orig> I have a question. The other day I put out a sugar desktop appliance [1] based on F9. It was pointed out that I violated the fedora trademark policies. I did some digging, and the relevant page seems to be [2].
My question is what is a "modification". If you look at my kickstart file [3], you see that I did 2 things which could be it:
a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora (xulrunner) b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo
[1] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugarAppliance.tar.gz [2] http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html [3] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugar.ks <orig>
My hope was that item (a) caused me to have to re-brand not item (b). Since item (b) is what would be required for appliances and live cds. It sounds like both A and B are issues. I will put these on the new guidelines pages to disucss.
-- bk
Bryan Kearney wrote:
Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Bryan Kearney wrote:
<SNIP> >> 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.
So.. I kicked this off on the ISV list, and here was the original scenario.
<orig> I have a question. The other day I put out a sugar desktop appliance [1] based on F9. It was pointed out that I violated the fedora trademark policies. I did some digging, and the relevant page seems to be [2].
My question is what is a "modification". If you look at my kickstart file [3], you see that I did 2 things which could be it:
a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora (xulrunner) b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo
[1] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugarAppliance.tar.gz [2] http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html [3] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugar.ks
<orig>
My hope was that item (a) caused me to have to re-brand not item (b). Since item (b) is what would be required for appliances and live cds. It sounds like both A and B are issues. I will put these on the new guidelines pages to disucss.
-- bk
Well... if I got it right - and feel free to correct me ;) - the current situation is that item (a) and (b) both force you to rebrand your spin / appliance, since they are non-Fedora bits :(
I had the same situation two weeks ago or so. I had created an education spin using an external repository, since we wanted to use already KDE 4.1. But I didn't remove fedora-logos, so we needed to "pull the plug". (http://sdziallas.joyeurs.com/blog/2008/07/pulling-the-plug.html)
I'm really in favor of such a trademark policy change, since it simplifies the whole thing quite a lot. One wouldn't need to rebrand the whole spin, when it stays non-public. At least, a kind of clarification on this topic would be definitely useful, since apparently, I'm not the only one, who didn't remove fedora-logos at first. Well, you asked for clarification, but I think this should be clearly stated somewhere in the wiki, in which cases one needs to rebrand - or not.
Sebastian
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
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.
I wasn't sure of the complexity required to create such a solution.
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).
Agreed, the cosmetic solution might simply be to change /etc/issue, or some such other downstream bit.
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.
Yes, I think this would be an onerous and extremely unworkable requirement too. I was only thinking of the case in derivative spins that use non-Fedora stuff, where we don't want users confused as to where they're going to get help. This discussion has been hashed over many times so there's no need to have it again here, I guess... :-) The new trademark guidelines (hopefully) will make it possible to allow a better connection to Fedora as the upstream but still make it clear that a distro is derived from Fedora and is not itself Fedora.
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.
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:
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.
I added this to the dicussion page for the trademarks. If we define a "SPIN" as something the board approves of and devotes resources too, then I am also interested in appliances/usbs which are done by third parties. Having the "based on" mark would be great.
-- bk
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
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.
I wasn't sure of the complexity required to create such a solution.
It means building the foo-release RPM, which cannot simply be done with a mouse-click (yet).
Some more complexity wrt rebranding is explained in one of my blog posts;
http://kanarip.livejournal.com/2222.html
and it's the top of the iceberg.
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.
Yes, I think this would be an onerous and extremely unworkable requirement too. I was only thinking of the case in derivative spins that use non-Fedora stuff, where we don't want users confused as to where they're going to get help. This discussion has been hashed over many times so there's no need to have it again here, I guess... :-) The new trademark guidelines (hopefully) will make it possible to allow a better connection to Fedora as the upstream but still make it clear that a distro is derived from Fedora and is not itself Fedora.
Yes, the "based on Fedora" use case, which I think could be implemented from a technical point of view so that a derivative:
- may have fedora-release, but then needs to
$ sed -i -e 's/Fedora/Foo/g' /etc/fedora-release
and needs another package, foo-release, to install the additional resources in terms of RPM-GPG keys and repository configuration.
== or ==
- does not use fedora-release and fully enables their foo-release to have all the content needed.
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.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
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.
so.. I would like to see a fedora-based-logos which gives a fedora branded look, but makes it clear there are new items on top. If they change something in fedora, use generic-logos
This assumes we have a valid "based on" concept in the trademark guide.
-- bk
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.
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.
Presentations, yes. Video demo's, yes. Placing a file on the desktop though is just as trivially impacting Fedora (eg. none at all) as placing it on the medium. Just a thought.
Now I want to demo a failover cluster with FooApp failing over nice and clean. Or, I want to pull someone from the audience and boot his/her laptop to join a cluster (again FooApp). These demo's will be given all over Europe maybe, at events, private training sessions (where students take the CD/USB key home for further practice?), and partners and distributors.
Just to clarify, this is what I had meant by using the word "demo" ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
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.
Presentations, yes. Video demo's, yes. Placing a file on the desktop though is just as trivially impacting Fedora (eg. none at all) as placing it on the medium. Just a thought.
Now I want to demo a failover cluster with FooApp failing over nice and clean. Or, I want to pull someone from the audience and boot his/her laptop to join a cluster (again FooApp). These demo's will be given all over Europe maybe, at events, private training sessions (where students take the CD/USB key home for further practice?), and partners and distributors.
Just to clarify, this is what I had meant by using the word "demo" ;-)
Kind regards,
Heck... why limit to demos? It could be that someone releases an open source Alfresco appliance for real use.
-- bk
Bryan Kearney wrote:
Heck... why limit to demos? It could be that someone releases an open source Alfresco appliance for real use.
I'll take two examples; a collaborative, calendering and mail server solution (named "product" for convenience), and a (simple?) DHCP/DNS/Network appliance piece of hardware (named "appliance" for convenience).
The obvious differences are:
- demo'ing a product in a certain setup as opposed to releasing it, and
- demo'ing a product that uses Linux as the (preferred?) operating system, as opposed to releasing that product, which usually doesn't come with the Linux operating system, let alone Fedora, and
- demo'ing or releasing an appliance product (the completely different line of products), where the operating system doesn't actually matter or it wouldn't be an appliance in the first place. Take this with a grain of salt as we all know we're trying to first establish a "de-facto standard" for a minimal Base OS third parties can build their appliance on top of, while, from a different perspective, a real appliance is not a "yum install" the way we are used to within Fedora, and should involve recompiling the software for purposes such as optimization and stability. Kind of a moot point in this discussion, but I hope you appreciate where I see a difference between the two (eg. "product" and appliance).
In the first two cases ("product") you don't care which distribution runs your demo you're just gonna want to take the most convenient (and I'd like to see Fedora have the upper hand there, from both the advertising, marketing as well as the potential revenue of ISV's getting involved in Fedora -just because we do things right this means revenue for all of FOSS), without requiring rebranding.
In the latter case you do care which distribution you base the appliance on, and you do want to rebrand, no matter what the effort might involve. Still, Fedora should have the upper hand here in that it should be the overall easiest, but it's an entirely different target audience, with different demands, wishes, targets, audiences and products. Like I suggested, once we enable re-compilation of software, but even before, it is not Fedora anymore, and it's entirely different and we do want to require rebranding.
I hope some of this makes sense I don't feel I'm able to make myself as clear as I want to.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
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"
-- bk
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 07:01 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
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"
That's exactly what the "Fedora Upstream"-type marking and the new guidelines are intended to do.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 07:01 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
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"
That's exactly what the "Fedora Upstream"-type marking and the new guidelines are intended to do.
If you move them to "Unregulated" then I am happy with it!
-- bk