When I think of "based on Fedora", to me that means that someone started off with Fedora and modified it to get whatever they have. From a legal stand point, that is blurry, but adding or subtracting packages should count. If you leave "based on Fedora" distros to those which only use a subset of the official packages, than you're really cutting out alot of people. I guess you could argue that the people could just maintain the additional packages in extras, but that isn't always the answer nor the best solution. If the guidelines are as restrictive as proposed then we are not going to achieve the desired effect. A lot of people make custom knoppix cd's with software that isn't on the original knoppix CD, that's one of the benefits of being able to do so, but they still claim that it is based off of knoppix. If you want to see people pick up Fedora and start creating derivatives like crazy (it's good PR), then the terms need to be more lenient. Yes, I know it is horrible from a legal point of view, but this is what the community has come to expect. The last thing we need is to throw the legal department at some hobbyist who made a personal distro with OpenMosix or something that isn't in Extras (not sure if OpenMosix is or isn't, just using it as an argument), and he puts it up on his site for people to download and says "Hey I made this custom CD that is based off of Fedora, but designed to set up an OpenMosix cluster". According to the guidelines proposed, legal would have to step in. It'd be horrible to the users, and to Fedora's image (I can see the headlines on Slashdot now). I'm just saying that people should be able to claim their work is based off of Fedora even if it includes non-fedora packages.
<br>-Steve<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/20/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jesse Keating</b> <<a href="mailto:jkeating@j2solutions.net">jkeating@j2solutions.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 20:30 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote:<br>> id have to remove all art and branding etc... ok...<br>><br>> but then again calling it "derived of fedora" is legal? i am still<br>> just curious... sorry for keeping on asking the same question. is only
<br>> "fork of fedora" legal then?<br><br>IANAL, but as long as it isn't in the name of the product, or the logo<br>of the product, I think in the documentation you can reference that it<br>was built from or based on Fedora.
<br><br>--<br>Jesse Keating RHCE (<a href="http://geek.j2solutions.net">geek.j2solutions.net</a>)<br>Fedora Legacy Team (<a href="http://www.fedoralegacy.org">www.fedoralegacy.org</a>)<br>GPG Public Key (
<a href="http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub">geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub</a>)<br><br><br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)<br><br>iD8DBQBER9VO4v2HLvE71NURAv9uAJ9Cdi9cgJDL9TlAeCYHW8Jb8D6osACggNMI
<br>ZT6uvoFzONzx/OC/F0qw4Hs=<br>=N7De<br>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br><br><br>--<br>Fedora-marketing-list mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com">Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com</a><br><a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list">
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br>