#38: Dopr
------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: msuchy | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: Trademarks | Resolution:
Keywords: meeting |
------------------------+---------------------
Comment (by mattdm):
Okay, so, I've spoken with Richard and Spot, and in short we're okay to go
ahead.
Richard agrees that while it's not a strict legal requirement, it would be
better from a brand point of view to use a clearly-separated account and
name: "Fedora Dopr" or "Fedora People" or whatever. There's,
apparently,
not a meaningful legal difference in doing this vs. users' individual
Docker accounts, by the way.
Richard also feels that it'd be beneficial to have a stronger warning
about permitted use on the Dopr site. (Possibly stronger and more visible
than the one used for the Copr service, with a checkbox confirming that
it's been seen.) He said he could write that -- Dopr devs, can you contact
him directly about that?
And, the trademark guidelines for Fedora in general could stand to be
updated for the new cloudy/containery world. (That's my wording, not his.)
That's somewhat separate, but affects how we want to control use of Fedora
branding in containers -- and, as Richard says, is more of a matter of the
Council deciding what we want to do with the brand, not necessarily a
legal mandate. But we need to have that conversation separately -- I don't
think it's necessarily blocking here.
On a related note, I still think we should restrict the service to Fedora
and CentOS bases, although it occurs to me that we shouldn't restrict it
to just the base image, but also the layered images Fedora/CentOS produce
+ any other Dopr. That seems like it'd be reasonably easy to implement
technically, especially if all Dopr containers are built in one Docker Hub
namespace.
--
Ticket URL: <
https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/38#comment:22>
council <
https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets