Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
>> (The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times
>> before...)
>
>
> But technology and published legal guidelines change...
Not every other week in this context.
>>> C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that
>>> include
>>> the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have
to
>>> do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )
>>
>> If this is done, it should be rebranded and not called Fedora.
>
>
> 'should' is one of those words...
>
> By my reading of the current trademark guidelines (before they
> disappeared from
>
>
http://rhold.fedoraproject.org/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/
>
> it is totally possible (with a little initrd guru-dom) to repackage
> the fedora-8-livecd iso (other isos too, but I'll use this as an
> example), such that mp3 and rpmfusion(or other arbitrary repos) work
> 'out of the box'.
[unsnip]
Just make a new iso, that contains the old iso as is, with a new initrd
and bootloader, that present the user with two choices-
a) "boot the official unmodified fedora-8-live image"
or
b) "boot the official fedora-8-live image, patched with mp3 support and
software repository configuration that the fedora organization does not
support or condone in any way"
[/unsnip]
I believe you are incorrect in this reading given everything I heard
on
this topic so far.
Rahul
Ok, thanks to MikeMC, I can defend my position from
http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html
"
Shipping Fedora™ code unmodified from the original download with
separate patches that may be applied by the end user at his/her
discretion is not a modification of the original code, provided:
1.
The original Fedora™ code is intact and identifiable at the time
of installation and on the media on which the code is delivered;
2.
The patches are provided independent of the original Fedora™ code
and are identifiable on the media on which the code is delivered;
3.
The end user is given the discretion as to whether to install the
patches; and
4.
Any marketing materials related to such a distribution make clear
that the vendor is providing patches which, if installed by the user,
will modify the Fedora™ code from its original form.
"
Please tell me how my above thoeretical repackaging of fedora does not
fall into this *very* explicitly permitted scenario.
-dmc