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