Kam Leo wrote:
On 12/29/05, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>Kam Leo wrote:
>
>
>>On 12/29/05, Dave Stevens <geek(a)uniserve.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>and there's
fedorafaq.org. not comprehensive but pretty good and as far as
I
>>>know everything there is accurate, easy to read, etc.
>>>
>>>d
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The problem with all these
fedora*.org sites is that some are and some
>>are not officially affiliated with the main
htttp://fedora.redhat.com
>>site. The fedora marketing droids need to really get the "fedora"
>>branding straightened out. There are too many of these "fedora*.org"
>>sites popping up and the ones officially affiliated are not tightly
>>coupled to the main site.
>>
>>
>
>The only official ones are
http://fedora.redhat.com and
>http://fedoraproject.org as listed in
>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites and they are pretty well coupled
>together. Rest of the community websites are listed in
for some reason I thought
fedoralegacy.org was official.
>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CommunityWebsites and managing them
is not
>really a function of "fedora marketing droids".
>
Isn't "Fedora" trademarked? So shouldn't the marketing droids set the
legal beagles upon the unofficial sites?
If I trademark the letter eff, it doesn't give me rights over words,
such as Fedora, which contain it.
Battles have been fought and lost by rich companies complaining about
names (or the site contents) they think degrading to their image, names
like
windowssucks.org and
microsoftsucks.org (these do exist, I checked
whois, but I've no idea whether anyone's ever complained about these
names or sites).
Even Red Hat's claim to the name Fedora hasn't prevented the Fedora
Society (which likely predates Red Hat's use of the word).
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)computerdatasafe.com.au Z1aaaaaaa(a)computerdatasafe.com.au
Tourist pics
http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list