[Fedora-spins] When to rebrand fedora?
bkearney at redhat.com
Thu Jul 31 11:35:13 UTC 2008
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:
>> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark
>> policy" wiki page, 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 sounds really reasonable! If this would be well defined and then
> added to the trademark policy, it would be, in my opinion, a real
So.. I kicked this off on the ISV list, and here was the original scenario.
I have a question. The other day I put out a sugar desktop appliance 
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 .
My question is what is a "modification". If you look at my kickstart
file , 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
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.
More information about the isv-sig