We gonna start an Rpmfusion Fedora spin giving user the much wanted/needed media support in Fedora.
With strictly the media support ( ugly-plugins etc. ) and the rpmfusion repo installed, and excluding AMD and Nvidia drivers will we need Rename the spin or could it be released under Fedora name and artwork? * Legal/others
If needed to change the name/artwork would FedoriansFusion be A OK If naming/artwork is changed could we include the AMD and Nvidia drivers?
Will this be available on fedoraprojects.org as in will Max Spevack put his money where is mouth is so I quote Max "So go forth and mix your own Fedora. And then come back and share it with us, and we’ll put it up on the _*Fedora website for others to use also.*_" ref. ( http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing-fedora-7/ ) Or was this just a pr c...
It would be interesting download stats Fedora VS Fedora with media support :)
If everything is done outside US hosted outside US created outside US how much legal jibber jabber comes from that ? Not for US residents version of Fedora?
Best regards Johann B.
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
We gonna start an Rpmfusion Fedora spin giving user the much wanted/needed media support in Fedora.
With strictly the media support ( ugly-plugins etc. ) and the rpmfusion repo installed, and excluding AMD and Nvidia drivers will we need Rename the spin or could it be released under Fedora name and artwork? * Legal/others
If needed to change the name/artwork would FedoriansFusion be A OK If naming/artwork is changed could we include the AMD and Nvidia drivers?
Will this be available on fedoraprojects.org as in will Max Spevack put his money where is mouth is so I quote Max "So go forth and mix your own Fedora. And then come back and share it with us, and we’ll put it up on the _*Fedora website for others to use also.*_" ref. ( http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing-fedora-7/ ) Or was this just a pr c...
It would be interesting download stats Fedora VS Fedora with media support :)
If everything is done outside US hosted outside US created outside US how much legal jibber jabber comes from that ? Not for US residents version of Fedora?
Best regards Johann B.
Everyone, please take not that Johann is not speaking on behave of the rpmfusion project.
Regards,
Hans
Hans de Goede wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
We gonna start an Rpmfusion Fedora spin giving user the much wanted/needed media support in Fedora.
With strictly the media support ( ugly-plugins etc. ) and the rpmfusion repo installed, and excluding AMD and Nvidia drivers will we need Rename the spin or could it be released under Fedora name and artwork? * Legal/others
If needed to change the name/artwork would FedoriansFusion be A OK If naming/artwork is changed could we include the AMD and Nvidia drivers?
Will this be available on fedoraprojects.org as in will Max Spevack put his money where is mouth is so I quote Max "So go forth and mix your own Fedora. And then come back and share it with us, and we’ll put it up on the _*Fedora website for others to use also.*_" ref. ( http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing-fedora-7/ ) Or was this just a pr c...
It would be interesting download stats Fedora VS Fedora with media support :)
If everything is done outside US hosted outside US created outside US how much legal jibber jabber comes from that ? Not for US residents version of Fedora?
Best regards Johann B.
Everyone, please take not that Johann is not speaking on behave of the rpmfusion project.
Regards,
Hans
I'm not speaking of behalf of the RpmFusion project so I make that clear ! If some one has taking it as such then I apologies It was never my intent to do so.
My mistake what I meant to say Subject: Fedora spin from RpmFusion packages.
I'm stricktly talking about an Fedora spin that will include RPMFusion repo to address an serious ( atleast I look at it as such ) problem an prevents Fedora to come even more widespreaded and add an working media support for the noob user so noob user does have to do anything to get an working media support. other then install and things work for him
Best regards Johann B.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
With strictly the media support ( ugly-plugins etc. ) and the rpmfusion repo installed, and excluding AMD and Nvidia drivers will we need Rename the spin or could it be released under Fedora name and artwork? * Legal/others
No. You are including content that is not in Fedora, therefor you cannot use the Fedora trademark and cannot use the trademarked logos. You would have some renaming work ahead of you.
If needed to change the name/artwork would FedoriansFusion be A OK If naming/artwork is changed could we include the AMD and Nvidia drivers?
Once you change the name, you can do whatever the heck you want with it, under the laws and restrictions of the particular country where it's being produced. I would suggest consulting a lawyer as to what laws apply (in particular with offering encryption technology).
Will this be available on fedoraprojects.org as in will Max Spevack put his money where is mouth is so I quote Max "So go forth and mix your own Fedora. And then come back and share it with us, and we’ll put it up on the _*Fedora website for others to use also.*_" ref. ( http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing-fedora-7/ ) Or was this just a pr c...
Remix implies that you take the package set and do something interesting with it, not just add a bunch of stuff from outside Fedora. Furthermore, regardless of location, Fedora isn't interested in patent encumbered software, as it's not free for /everybody/. It's entirely uninteresting to promote such a thing.
It would be interesting download stats Fedora VS Fedora with media support :)
Not really.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
With strictly the media support ( ugly-plugins etc. ) and the rpmfusion repo installed, and excluding AMD and Nvidia drivers will we need Rename the spin or could it be released under Fedora name and artwork? * Legal/others
No. You are including content that is not in Fedora, therefor you cannot use the Fedora trademark and cannot use the trademarked logos. You would have some renaming work ahead of you.
I guessed so.. and replacing the artwork as well right?
If needed to change the name/artwork would FedoriansFusion be A OK If naming/artwork is changed could we include the AMD and Nvidia drivers?
Once you change the name, you can do whatever the heck you want with it, under the laws and restrictions of the particular country where it's being produced. I would suggest consulting a lawyer as to what laws apply (in particular with offering encryption technology).
Encryption added to the checklist..
But would I still be allowed to update and use Fedora repos right?
As in how deep would I need to go in renaming things? Removing every image containing the Fedora logo and every instance of the word Fedora. Repackage?
Will this be available on fedoraprojects.org as in will Max Spevack put his money where is mouth is so I quote Max "So go forth and mix your own Fedora. And then come back and share it with us, and we’ll put it up on the _*Fedora website for others to use also.*_" ref. ( http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing-fedora-7/ ) Or was this just a pr c...
Remix implies that you take the package set and do something interesting with it, not just add a bunch of stuff from outside Fedora. Furthermore, regardless of location, Fedora isn't interested in patent encumbered software, as it's not free for /everybody/. It's entirely uninteresting to promote such a thing.
Mean what are the exact issue with for example libdvdcss ? licenced GPL
In other words for me do get my spin hosted on fedora project I can only play with fedora packages in fedora repo and how *my* setup is aka spin correct?
As in my spins do not include Emacs because Emacs sucks as an editor compared to Vi..
No offense Emacs users this was just an example...
It would be interesting download stats Fedora VS Fedora with media support :)
Not really.
For me it it would.
Would it increase the usage of Fedora?
Also would like to see what would be the next issue if the media problem would go away from user perspective.
( As in the user didn't have to bother to take some extra steps him self work out of the box kinda thing. )
Best regards. Johann B.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:20:09 +0000 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
With strictly the media support ( ugly-plugins etc. ) and the rpmfusion repo installed, and excluding AMD and Nvidia drivers will we need Rename the spin or could it be released under Fedora name and artwork? * Legal/others
No. You are including content that is not in Fedora, therefor you cannot use the Fedora trademark and cannot use the trademarked logos. You would have some renaming work ahead of you.
I guessed so.. and replacing the artwork as well right?
Yes.
But would I still be allowed to update and use Fedora repos right?
You could have the spin pull from the Fedora repos for things, yes.
As in how deep would I need to go in renaming things? Removing every image containing the Fedora logo and every instance of the word Fedora. Repackage?
I'm not sure but it wouldn't be trivial.
Will this be available on fedoraprojects.org as in will Max Spevack put his money where is mouth is so I quote Max "So go forth and mix your own Fedora. And then come back and share it with us, and we’ll put it up on the _*Fedora website for others to use also.*_" ref. ( http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing-fedora-7/ ) Or was this just a pr c...
Remix implies that you take the package set and do something interesting with it, not just add a bunch of stuff from outside Fedora. Furthermore, regardless of location, Fedora isn't interested in patent encumbered software, as it's not free for /everybody/. It's entirely uninteresting to promote such a thing.
Mean what are the exact issue with for example libdvdcss ? licenced GPL
Doesn't matter what the license is if the techniques are patented.
In other words for me do get my spin hosted on fedora project I can only play with fedora packages in fedora repo and how *my* setup is aka spin correct?
As in my spins do not include Emacs because Emacs sucks as an editor compared to Vi..
No offense Emacs users this was just an example...
Right. To make it simple, you can't include any packages outside of the Fedora repos if you want to call it Fedora.
It would be interesting download stats Fedora VS Fedora with media support :)
Not really.
For me it it would.
Would it increase the usage of Fedora?
No. It has the potential to increase the usage of whatever you call it, which won't be Fedora.
Also would like to see what would be the next issue if the media problem would go away from user perspective.
( As in the user didn't have to bother to take some extra steps him self work out of the box kinda thing. )
That would be interesting, sure. But it's not really applicable to Fedora since the "media problem" isn't something Fedora can simply solve.
josh
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 07:25:51AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:20:09 +0000 "J??hann B. Gu??mundsson" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 ""J??hann B. Gu??mundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
With strictly the media support ( ugly-plugins etc. ) and the rpmfusion repo installed, and excluding AMD and Nvidia drivers will we need Rename the spin or could it be released under Fedora name and artwork? * Legal/others
No. You are including content that is not in Fedora, therefor you cannot use the Fedora trademark and cannot use the trademarked logos. You would have some renaming work ahead of you.
I guessed so.. and replacing the artwork as well right?
Yes.
With the exception of the trademarked logos, the rest of the artwork is licensed to be reused, so it need not all be replaced.
But would I still be allowed to update and use Fedora repos right?
You could have the spin pull from the Fedora repos for things, yes.
As in how deep would I need to go in renaming things? Removing every image containing the Fedora logo and every instance of the word Fedora. Repackage?
I'm not sure but it wouldn't be trivial.
There's work underway to make the fedora-logos package replaceable exactly so this task becomes trivial.
Matt Domsch wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 07:25:51AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:20:09 +0000 "J??hann B. Gu??mundsson" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
I guessed so.. and replacing the artwork as well right?
Yes.
With the exception of the trademarked logos, the rest of the artwork is licensed to be reused, so it need not all be replaced.
Indeed, and for the graphics containing logos, you can ask on the fedora-art-list for unbranded versions (graphics in F8 are already less branded compared with previous releases).
Check also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureGenericLogos
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg@hi.is) said:
I guessed so.. and replacing the artwork as well right?
You may find the recently added generic-logos package useful.
In other words for me do get my spin hosted on fedora project I can only play with fedora packages in fedora repo and how *my* setup is aka spin correct?
Correct - we can't host things that contain packages or content we can't ship.
Bill
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
No. You are including content that is not in Fedora, therefor you cannot use the Fedora trademark and cannot use the trademarked logos. You would have some renaming work ahead of you.
I guessed so.. and replacing the artwork as well right?
The branded images but a lot of work has gone into consolidating the branding and we already have generic-logos package in rawhide now which is created explicitly so that derivatives can do rebranding easily.
Rahul
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
Will this be available on fedoraprojects.org as in will Max Spevack put his money where is mouth is so I quote Max "So go forth and mix your own Fedora. And then come back and share it with us, and we’ll put it up on the _*Fedora website for others to use also.*_" ref. ( http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing-fedora-7/ ) Or was this just a pr c...
Remix implies that you take the package set and do something interesting with it, not just add a bunch of stuff from outside Fedora. Furthermore, regardless of location, Fedora isn't interested in patent encumbered software, as it's not free for /everybody/. It's entirely uninteresting to promote such a thing.
The Fedora-unity re-spins could be posted on fedoraprojects.org along with the official img right?
They just contain updates and nothing outside the fedora repo tree. ( And their FC6 respin release didn't contain the whole FC6 I586 issue that slipped through QA )
And I think that Max Spevack ( or any Red Hat/Fedora offical ) should contact them and offer them to post their images along with the official ones.
That alone would be progress in the right direction ( and save users bandwith and long update time )
Best regards Johann B.
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
Will this be available on fedoraprojects.org as in will Max Spevack put his money where is mouth is so I quote Max "So go forth and mix your own Fedora. And then come back and share it with us, and we’ll put it up on the _*Fedora website for others to use also.*_" ref. ( http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing-fedora-7/ ) Or was this just a pr c...
Remix implies that you take the package set and do something interesting with it, not just add a bunch of stuff from outside Fedora. Furthermore, regardless of location, Fedora isn't interested in patent encumbered software, as it's not free for /everybody/. It's entirely uninteresting to promote such a thing.
The Fedora-unity re-spins could be posted on fedoraprojects.org along with the official img right?
Here's the current process. We're still working out the process but nothing has been approved yet (we just got this page up there yesterday afternoon)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/CustomSpins
-Mike
Mike McGrath wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
Will this be available on fedoraprojects.org as in will Max Spevack put his money where is mouth is so I quote Max "So go forth and mix your own Fedora. And then come back and share it with us, and we’ll put it up on the _*Fedora website for others to use also.*_" ref. ( http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing-fedora-7/ ) Or was this just a pr c...
Remix implies that you take the package set and do something interesting with it, not just add a bunch of stuff from outside Fedora. Furthermore, regardless of location, Fedora isn't interested in patent encumbered software, as it's not free for /everybody/. It's entirely uninteresting to promote such a thing.
The Fedora-unity re-spins could be posted on fedoraprojects.org along with the official img right?
Here's the current process. We're still working out the process but nothing has been approved yet (we just got this page up there yesterday afternoon)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/CustomSpins
-Mike
I still think that Fedora-unity re-spins which are the official img with updates should be on the front with the official ones ( and I feel even more strongly about this issue should replace the official ones ). If users would have downloaded the FC6 respins instead of the "original cant be *touch* updated nor fixed after the release" ones would have saved alot of trouble ( I586 issue ).
Custom spins like Daves spins or Mary's spins can be under spins.fedoraproject.org
Best regards Johann B.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:56:59 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
I still think that Fedora-unity re-spins which are the official img with updates should be on the front with the official ones ( and I feel even more strongly about this issue should replace the official ones ). If users would have downloaded the FC6 respins instead of the "original cant be *touch* updated nor fixed after the release" ones would have saved alot of trouble ( I586 issue ).
The problem with this is the amount of work it would take before many of us would feel comfortable with them replacing the gold images. The code path used at install time is a bit fragile and replacing what was tested at GOLD time with a bunch of new packages (which at times won't work at all. It's quite literally yet another release to freeze for, spend a bunch of time QAing, fixing various bugs, etc... and when we're doing (currently) a full release every 6 months with 3 test releases between each, there really just isn't any bandwidth left to add respins with updates into the mix, especially if we want a chance at all of doing any tools development.
Don't get me wrong, I think respins are great, but I really really don't feel comfortable offering them up as anything other than 'use at your own risk' and certainly not to replace the GOLD spins where yeah, there might be bugs, but at least they're known and usually have suitable workarounds.
There are also legal concerns with doing more releases like this that I don't even want to get into right now.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:56:59 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
I still think that Fedora-unity re-spins which are the official img with updates should be on the front with the official ones ( and I feel even more strongly about this issue should replace the official ones ).
In another thread on another mailing list I'm reading that Release Engineering will need to be able to build the spins that are to be blessed by the Fedora Project Board, and they have chosen to only do so with their own tools because they have "zero confidence" in the tool Fedora Unity uses. This would prevent the Unity Re-Spins from being blessed or included in a Fedora Project torrent site.
If users would have downloaded the FC6 respins instead of the "original cant be *touch* updated nor fixed after the release" ones would have saved alot of trouble ( I586 issue ).
The problem with this is the amount of work it would take before many of us would feel comfortable with them replacing the gold images. The code path used at install time is a bit fragile and replacing what was tested at GOLD time with a bunch of new packages (which at times won't work at all. It's quite literally yet another release to freeze for, spend a bunch of time QAing, fixing various bugs, etc...
Surely if a handful of volunteers can do it, as they do now, it shouldn't be the slightest problem for Red Hat, would it?
and when we're
doing (currently) a full release every 6 months with 3 test releases between each, there really just isn't any bandwidth left to add respins with updates into the mix, especially if we want a chance at all of doing any tools development.
Don't get me wrong, I think respins are great, but I really really don't feel comfortable offering them up as anything other than 'use at your own risk' and certainly not to replace the GOLD spins where yeah, there might be bugs, but at least they're known and usually have suitable workarounds.
One of which is to compose a spin with the updates fixing the issues, don't you think?
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen - -kanarip
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:34:38 +0200 Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
One of which is to compose a spin with the updates fixing the issues, don't you think?
Only if enough validation is done to ensure that the changes brought in don't introduce other issues. It's not like the time needed is just the time to click a button and watch a spin happens, there is a lot of validation work that needs to be done, and yes, some of it has to be done by myself before I'm willing to sign off on it.
Mike McGrath wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
Will this be available on fedoraprojects.org as in will Max Spevack put his money where is mouth is so I quote Max "So go forth and mix your own Fedora. And then come back and share it with us, and we’ll put it up on the _*Fedora website for others to use also.*_" ref. ( http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing-fedora-7/ ) Or was this just a pr c...
Remix implies that you take the package set and do something interesting with it, not just add a bunch of stuff from outside Fedora. Furthermore, regardless of location, Fedora isn't interested in patent encumbered software, as it's not free for /everybody/. It's entirely uninteresting to promote such a thing.
The Fedora-unity re-spins could be posted on fedoraprojects.org along with the official img right?
Here's the current process. We're still working out the process but nothing has been approved yet (we just got this page up there yesterday afternoon)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/CustomSpins
-Mike
Ok so let's take it step by step from the normal user...
Even if he's familiar with other tools to created the images whatever they might be he knows that the image gets dropped since it he's not using the official Fedora remixing tools. ( Not looking at the quality of the final product/outcome but automatically dropping it since it was not build using official Fedora remixing tools )
So he study s he reads he learns, and finally masters Pungi,LiveCD Creator and Revisor. Don't know how much time it takes for an normal user do to that but let's say he stays focused through out the process.
Happy as he is after all his work reading testing and all he now can start building his own favorite Fedora spin that he wants to share with the rest of the world or his fellow Fedorians.
He starts his normal package selection he wants this and he doesn't want that and let's give him that he manages to go through that without his package constantly being pulled back in due to dependency. His package selection has now been successfully finished.
For the finishing but vital touch for the him, his look, his feel, his view of the world, HIS theme and look in Gnome or KDE, because he wants to brag about how *COOL* his desktop looks but then he realizes that his icons, desktop image and window manager themes cant be used since he pulled it from gnome-look or kde-look or he created the theme/icons/background image himself and since his theme was not in the official repo he knows is spins gets rejected. Since he had put all that work in this already.. he's stubborn and decides to send his *final product his spin* to the release engineers.
He was lucky he was the first of 1000 Fedorians that wanted to share their spins with each other so the release engineers actually could spare the little time they have from working on the official Fedora to review his spin and yes it is as technically Fedora as possible and he gets an pass, yea he thinks yes, it's not all for nothing, now for the board will they approve, Can he use Fedora trademarks? He can....
But But.. He had forgotten to learn how to create kickstart file, after all this work, so close yet so far... He study s, he reads, he learns, he MASTERS kickstart.. ant the beautiful kickstart script is born
He gives the much needed kickstart script to the not so busy release engineers ( tho they are getting overloaded they seem to have less and less time to focus on Fedora itself.. ) It gets approved, It is there.. His work has now made it to the spins.fedoraproject.org he brags, points. spreads the word, look there it is there's my spin of Fedora.... It hits all the internet news websites, users from all over the world start downloading and installing, the first spin ever to be released on spins.fedoraproject.org. and whats the outcome it's is an web browser, an email client, and an office suite with no media support in theme that was so far from the user ideas as possible. A major flop, the reviews go in, user reads it, graps the next shot gun and kills himself.
If this spins project is ever gonna work for both developers and users. the upload process of the spins have to be done without any reviews.
Since the user is restricted to "Fedora ways" and the outcome can always be calculated you can take md5 some or some other thing of each package(s) + that with another package(s) store all the possible variation in a database, create a spins, Create a spin dump directory on the web server. let the user have an FC account which they have to authenticate against and after log in aka in their fedora account, there would be an option to upload an spin. When they are gonna upload a spin, they are asked to put an description of the spin(s) and the sum of the spin packages which is then match to the all possible sums in the database and voila. Release engingeers can focus on their work, users dont have go through "reviews" to be approved.. everybody is happy or as they can be ( except of no media support in their spins )..
Think more then 1 user people how where you gonna handle 10000 of spins, or this being develop of not being used and popular...
***sight***
Best regards. Johann B.
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
Here's the current process. We're still working out the process but nothing has been approved yet (we just got this page up there yesterday afternoon)
Snip
Ok so let's take it step by step from the normal user...
What can I say dude, it takes commitment. If someone wants to spend 5 minutes to build an image and hand it off to us... we're not interested.
Since the user is restricted to "Fedora ways" and the outcome can always be calculated you can take md5 some or some other thing of each package(s) + that with another package(s) store all the possible variation in a database, create a spins, Create a spin dump directory on the web server. let the user have an FC account which they have to authenticate against and after log in aka in their fedora account, there would be an option to upload an spin. When they are gonna upload a spin, they are asked to put an description of the spin(s) and the sum of the spin packages which is then match to the all possible sums in the database and voila. Release engingeers can focus on their work, users dont have go through "reviews" to be approved.. everybody is happy or as they can be ( except of no media support in their spins )..
Think more then 1 user people how where you gonna handle 10000 of spins, or this being develop of not being used and popular... ***sight***
You've forgotten to take in to consideration brand dilution. I can't imagine a scenario where Fedora is officially hosting 10,000 spins for a single release. It's not the way I envision it (Not that what I say is the way it is, feel free to take a 10,000 spin proposal to the FAB but I think you'll find its not practical). Getting a spin hosted by Fedora should be a process that takes Fedora's image into account which is why there is a Trademark check by the board. If they decide that the spin is bad for Fedora's image or they have decided we've gotten spin crazy they'll put a stop to it. The re-spins are supposed to be quality, compelling spins. Not some silly crap that $RANDOM_STUDENT made for a class that he'll forget all about after the class is done.
The way I see it is that SIG's in Fedora can create their own spin if they feel its needed. I doubt there will be too many "look what _I_ did" spins at spins.fedoraproject.org if any. I'd think it should be "look at what _we_ did". Being in the Infrastructure group we see a lot of "Wouldn't it be cool if? Here, now you host and maintain it." Which just doesn't scale / work and is very annoying.
This is especially true since people, dedicated people, could create their own spin and host it themselves.
-Mike
On 28.09.2007 20:14, Mike McGrath wrote:
Ok so let's take it step by step from the normal user...
What can I say dude, it takes commitment. If someone wants to spend 5 minutes to build an image and hand it off to us... we're not interested.
In addition: let's get rpmfusion running first before talking about rpmfusion spins.
/me wanders off to continue installing plague for rpmfusion
Cu knurd
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 13:14 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
You've forgotten to take in to consideration brand dilution. I can't imagine a scenario where Fedora is officially hosting 10,000 spins for a single release. It's not the way I envision it (Not that what I say is the way it is, feel free to take a 10,000 spin proposal to the FAB but I think you'll find its not practical). Getting a spin hosted by Fedora should be a process that takes Fedora's image into account which is why there is a Trademark check by the board. If they decide that the spin is bad for Fedora's image or they have decided we've gotten spin crazy they'll put a stop to it.
/me plans the fedora-pr0n-server spin
-sv
Mike McGrath wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
Here's the current process. We're still working out the process but nothing has been approved yet (we just got this page up there yesterday afternoon)
Snip
Ok so let's take it step by step from the normal user...
What can I say dude, it takes commitment. If someone wants to spend 5 minutes to build an image and hand it off to us... we're not interested.
So an image that is created in hour(s) day(s) weeks is an image that is better than an image that is created in 5 minutes.. So as long as I created the image in an time line the suits you guys that are interested. ( just hope that evolution will come to an halt and so I images that I would respin can meet their timeline )
Since the user is restricted to "Fedora ways" and the outcome can always be calculated you can take md5 some or some other thing of each package(s) + that with another package(s) store all the possible variation in a database, create a spins, Create a spin dump directory on the web server. let the user have an FC account which they have to authenticate against and after log in aka in their fedora account, there would be an option to upload an spin. When they are gonna upload a spin, they are asked to put an description of the spin(s) and the sum of the spin packages which is then match to the all possible sums in the database and voila. Release engingeers can focus on their work, users dont have go through "reviews" to be approved.. everybody is happy or as they can be ( except of no media support in their spins )..
Think more then 1 user people how where you gonna handle 10000 of spins, or this being develop of not being used and popular... ***sight***
You've forgotten to take in to consideration brand dilution. I can't imagine a scenario where Fedora is officially hosting 10,000 spins for a single release. It's not the way I envision it (Not that what I say is the way it is, feel free to take a 10,000 spin proposal to the FAB but I think you'll find its not practical). Getting a spin hosted by Fedora should be a process that takes Fedora's image into account which is why there is a Trademark check by the board. If they decide that the spin is bad for Fedora's image or they have decided we've gotten spin crazy they'll put a stop to it. The re-spins are supposed to be quality, compelling spins. Not some silly crap that $RANDOM_STUDENT made for a class that he'll forget all about after the class is done.
The uploaded images would be deleted after user account as been inactive for a while or on 2 months after a new Fedora release
The way I see it is that SIG's in Fedora can create their own spin if they feel its needed. I doubt there will be too many "look what _I_ did" spins at spins.fedoraproject.org if any. I'd think it should be "look at what _we_ did". Being in the Infrastructure group we see a lot of "Wouldn't it be cool if? Here, now you host and maintain it." Which just doesn't scale / work and is very annoying.
This is especially true since people, dedicated people, could create their own spin and host it themselves.
-Mike
For the record if people haven't noticed it yet playing by those Fedora restricted/bounded rules will never become interesting...
Know variable == Known result == Boring..
With this limited thinking this project is doomed to fail....
Best regards Johann B.
"Put the clay in the hand of the individual and see what he creates without boundary's it's then when the outcome becomes interesting "
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
For the record if people haven't noticed it yet playing by those Fedora restricted/bounded rules will never become interesting...
Know variable == Known result == Boring..
I agree, the most interesting spins will come from those people that either live in other countries or give no regard to the laws and regulations in which they live. People working outside of Fedora's rules will be able to do whatever they want, including forking a version of Fedora with full multimedia goodness. Mythdora anyone? I agree those spins will be awesome.... but they won't be called Fedora. Unfortunately what you are wanting to do can't be included into Fedora proper. Having said that I (and I assume many others) look forward to your spin, good luck.
-Mike
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
For the record if people haven't noticed it yet playing by those Fedora restricted/bounded rules will never become interesting...
Know variable == Known result == Boring..
I agree, the most interesting spins will come from those people that either live in other countries or give no regard to the laws and regulations in which they live. People working outside of Fedora's rules will be able to do whatever they want, including forking a version of Fedora with full multimedia goodness. Mythdora anyone? I agree those spins will be awesome.... but they won't be called Fedora. Unfortunately what you are wanting to do can't be included into Fedora proper. Having said that I (and I assume many others) look forward to your spin, good luck.
-Mike
Things settled once and for all..
With those word said. Is it an official statement from Red Hat/Fedora that proper media suppport and an option that could allow user to do so during install anaconda/firstboot ( disclaimer/user takes responsibility rpmfusion or other 3rd party repo setup for user and user can chose to install "questionable software" packages from there) inclusion or an chose for an user to setup, install or othewize an 3 party repository during installation that may contain questionable" software will never make it into Fedora/Red Hat unless changes in ( US )laws are made.
( And doesn't Red Hat/Fedora have to blacklist or prevent during installation that the name and paths of known 3 party repostory's from legal perspective otherwise they can be held countable? )
Users and developer can drop all discussion regarding this issue and ways to solve it.
Leaving users and developers with these 3 options..
A. An addon cd that includes the prober media package.
Users are left with the option to find and download an cd that contains the questionable software and can install from/off it
B. User have to install/setup the 3 party respository after initial installation/setup.
C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that include the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )
Software that is/has been developed that can be misused to break "laws" tho it's initial creation and function of the software was never indented to do so will never be included in Red Hat/Fedora ( Even tho that package is gpl and source is made publicly available ) made available, in Red Hat/Fedora
Just so things can be settled..
Best regards Johann B.
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
(The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times before...)
Things settled once and for all..
With those word said. Is it an official statement from Red Hat/Fedora that proper media suppport and an option that could allow user to do so during install anaconda/firstboot ( disclaimer/user takes responsibility rpmfusion or other 3rd party repo setup for user and user can chose to install "questionable software" packages from there) inclusion or an chose for an user to setup, install or othewize an 3 party repository during installation that may contain questionable" software will never make it into Fedora/Red Hat unless changes in ( US )laws are made.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-September/msg01036.ht...
( And doesn't Red Hat/Fedora have to blacklist or prevent during installation that the name and paths of known 3 party repostory's from legal perspective otherwise they can be held countable? )
They won't be. The whole point of contributory infringement is that you are contributing to it. Allowing something is different from aiding it.
Leaving users and developers with these 3 options..
A. An addon cd that includes the prober media package.
Users are left with the option to find and download an cd that contains the questionable software and can install from/off it
B. User have to install/setup the 3 party respository after initial installation/setup.
Anaconda has the ability to install software off a repository during installation time from Fedora Core 6 onwards.
C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that include the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )
If this is done, it should be rebranded and not called Fedora.
Software that is/has been developed that can be misused to break "laws" tho it's initial creation and function of the software was never indented to do so will never be included in Red Hat/Fedora ( Even tho that package is gpl and source is made publicly available ) made available, in Red Hat/Fedora
Just so things can be settled..
If the software is infringing patents, it cannot be included regardless of it's copyright license.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
(The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times before...)
But technology and published legal guidelines change...
C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that include the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )
If this is done, it should be rebranded and not called Fedora.
'should' is one of those words...
By my reading of the current trademark guidelines (before they disappeared from
http://rhold.fedoraproject.org/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/
it is totally possible (with a little initrd guru-dom) to repackage the fedora-8-livecd iso (other isos too, but I'll use this as an example), such that mp3 and rpmfusion(or other arbitrary repos) work 'out of the box'.
Just make a new iso, that contains the old iso as is, with a new initrd and bootloader, that present the user with two choices-
a) "boot the official unmodified fedora-8-live image"
or
b) "boot the official fedora-8-live image, patched with mp3 support and software repository configuration that the fedora organization does not support or condone in any way"
Software that is/has been developed that can be misused to break "laws" tho it's initial creation and function of the software was never indented to do so will never be included in Red Hat/Fedora ( Even tho that package is gpl and source is made publicly available ) made available, in Red Hat/Fedora
Just so things can be settled..
If the software is infringing patents, it cannot be included regardless of it's copyright license.
Given that the fedora trademark guidelines allow the above (seriously they do, I was very surprised when I read them myself), and given that some individuals and organizations may live in different countries, or have lawyers that come to different conclusions about what laws their country permits, I think the above should make everyone happy.
No, such software compositions as described above would not be hosted by fedora, but hey, that's what bittorrent is for...
-dmc
(P.S.- please rel-eng-team, keep the official livecd iso as far under 700M as possible, wink wink, nudge nudge...)
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
(The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times before...)
But technology and published legal guidelines change...
Not every other week in this context.
C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that include the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )
If this is done, it should be rebranded and not called Fedora.
'should' is one of those words...
By my reading of the current trademark guidelines (before they disappeared from
http://rhold.fedoraproject.org/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/
it is totally possible (with a little initrd guru-dom) to repackage the fedora-8-livecd iso (other isos too, but I'll use this as an example), such that mp3 and rpmfusion(or other arbitrary repos) work 'out of the box'.
I believe you are incorrect in this reading given everything I heard on this topic so far.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
(The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times before...)
But technology and published legal guidelines change...
Not every other week in this context.
C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that include the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )
If this is done, it should be rebranded and not called Fedora.
'should' is one of those words...
By my reading of the current trademark guidelines (before they disappeared from
http://rhold.fedoraproject.org/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/
it is totally possible (with a little initrd guru-dom) to repackage the fedora-8-livecd iso (other isos too, but I'll use this as an example), such that mp3 and rpmfusion(or other arbitrary repos) work 'out of the box'.
[unsnip] Just make a new iso, that contains the old iso as is, with a new initrd and bootloader, that present the user with two choices-
a) "boot the official unmodified fedora-8-live image"
or
b) "boot the official fedora-8-live image, patched with mp3 support and software repository configuration that the fedora organization does not support or condone in any way" [/unsnip]
I believe you are incorrect in this reading given everything I heard on this topic so far.
Rahul
Ok, thanks to MikeMC, I can defend my position from
http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html
" Shipping Fedora™ code unmodified from the original download with separate patches that may be applied by the end user at his/her discretion is not a modification of the original code, provided:
1.
The original Fedora™ code is intact and identifiable at the time of installation and on the media on which the code is delivered; 2.
The patches are provided independent of the original Fedora™ code and are identifiable on the media on which the code is delivered; 3.
The end user is given the discretion as to whether to install the patches; and 4.
Any marketing materials related to such a distribution make clear that the vendor is providing patches which, if installed by the user, will modify the Fedora™ code from its original form. "
Please tell me how my above thoeretical repackaging of fedora does not fall into this *very* explicitly permitted scenario.
-dmc
Douglas McClendon wrote:
"
Please tell me how my above thoeretical repackaging of fedora does not fall into this *very* explicitly permitted scenario.
The permissions listed was done IIRC to OEM's to do post install modifications such as ship a optional repository of software. The guidelines are a living document and written to state the Fedora Project's position on various things. If they are exploited to do things, Fedora Project does not endorse, they can and will be modified to not permit those activities.
IMO, modifying Fedora to offer Free software with patent restrictions or non-free software is one of those things, Fedora does not want to provide its brand towards for protecting the project goals as well as to avoid legal liability. Maybe spot (CC'ed) can look into why these permissions were provided in the first place.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
"
Please tell me how my above thoeretical repackaging of fedora does not fall into this *very* explicitly permitted scenario.
The permissions listed was done IIRC to OEM's to do post install modifications such as ship a optional repository of software. The guidelines are a living document and written to state the Fedora Project's position on various things. If they are exploited to do things, Fedora Project does not endorse, they can and will be modified to not permit those activities.
IMO, modifying Fedora to offer Free software with patent restrictions or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think you fully understood what I was describing, or the specific permissions involved.
I was not talking about modifying one single bit of fedora, but rather packaging it with other software which fedora has no desire in auditing either the quality, or legality of.
Likewise, the specific fedora legal guidelines I quoted, went to great lengths to create this exception and definition of what constitutes "non-modified fedora" and under what circumstances it is acceptable to redistribute it.
Key Here- 'the fedora software', i.e. a 690M(fingers crossed) LiveOS iso image with a specific sha1sum, remains intact and unmodified. It is merely distributed in combination on media with additional software, fully adhering to the 4 conditions set forth in the legal guidelines.
Remember, those guidelines were put in place presumably so that OEMs could ship software of any quality (i.e. maybe it eats half your hard drive every other install), in a way that integrates that software with fedora, but also in a way which keeps 'pure fedora' 'pure'. Whether the software addon is buggy crap that corrupts filesystems, or whether it is not legal in some countries, is really beside the point of diluting or poisoning the brand. (or rather, again, the guidelines are what puts up a firewall that is deemed acceptable for protecting the brand from _any_ arbitrarily 'bad' software/patches).
Cheers,
-dmc
non-free software is one of those things, Fedora does not want to provide its brand towards for protecting the project goals as well as to avoid legal liability. Maybe spot (CC'ed) can look into why these permissions were provided in the first place.
Rahul
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
"
Please tell me how my above thoeretical repackaging of fedora does not fall into this *very* explicitly permitted scenario.
The permissions listed was done IIRC to OEM's to do post install modifications such as ship a optional repository of software. The guidelines are a living document and written to state the Fedora Project's position on various things. If they are exploited to do things, Fedora Project does not endorse, they can and will be modified to not permit those activities.
IMO, modifying Fedora to offer Free software with patent restrictions or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I don't think you fully understood what I was describing, or the specific permissions involved.
I meant modification is a broader sense and not just patching some specific software. At any rate, the guidelines must reflect project goals and not vice versa. What you want to do IMO definitely falls outside the scope of the project and must not retain the Fedora name. Now it is upto to Fedora Project Board and Red Hat legal to determine what's acceptable. Let's leave it at that.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram (sundaram@fedoraproject.org) said:
I don't think you fully understood what I was describing, or the specific permissions involved.
I meant modification is a broader sense and not just patching some specific software. At any rate, the guidelines must reflect project goals and not vice versa. What you want to do IMO definitely falls outside the scope of the project and must not retain the Fedora name. Now it is upto to Fedora Project Board and Red Hat legal to determine what's acceptable. Let's leave it at that.
The guidelines were specifically designed so that someone could ship stock Fedora and an additional repository of vendor packages, whether it be Dell addons, Creative Commons content or whatever.
If those guidelines are followed, then, without actually changing the guidelines, it doesn't really matter what that content/packages are.
Bill
Bill Nottingham wrote:
The guidelines were specifically designed so that someone could ship stock Fedora and an additional repository of vendor packages, whether it be Dell addons, Creative Commons content or whatever.
If those guidelines are followed, then, without actually changing the guidelines, it doesn't really matter what that content/packages are.
That is indeed my implicit question. Do you still want vendors to ship software not included in Fedora and still call it Fedora? Is it ok for anyone and everyone to do so with any set of software? Does the current trademark guidelines match the goals of the project?
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
The guidelines were specifically designed so that someone could ship stock Fedora and an additional repository of vendor packages, whether it be Dell addons, Creative Commons content or whatever. If those guidelines are followed, then, without actually changing the guidelines, it doesn't really matter what that content/packages are.
That is indeed my implicit question. Do you still want vendors to ship software not included in Fedora and still call it Fedora?
Nobody currently gets to call anything "Fedora" that isn't a very specific set of bits that are originally and solely shipped by the fedora project.
What they get to do, is take those bits as a whole, not modify them in any way whatsoever, and bundle them with other software, with the explicit restriction that-
" 4.
Any marketing materials related to such a distribution make clear that the vendor is providing patches which, if installed by the user, will modify the Fedora™ code from its original form. "
Is it ok for
anyone and everyone to do so with any set of software? Does the current trademark guidelines match the goals of the project?
Honestly, what business is it of yours, how people distribute *unmodified* copies of fedora? Sure I'd love to have a legal license which states that any free software I write, cannot be used by governments to support in any way whatsoever an institution which engages in 'baiting' tactics that use entrapment as justification for murder, but I'm a realist. Hopefully our software will save more babies than it kills (or 'eats' is I suppose the parlance of choice...)
-dmc
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Is it ok for
anyone and everyone to do so with any set of software? Does the current trademark guidelines match the goals of the project?
Honestly, what business is it of yours, how people distribute *unmodified* copies of fedora?
Some modifications are explicitly allowed by the trademark guidelines. My question to the Fedora Project Board was whether it should be.
Sure I'd love to have a legal license
which states that any free software I write, cannot be used by governments to support in any way whatsoever an institution which engages in 'baiting' tactics that use entrapment as justification for murder, but I'm a realist.
Such a restriction wouldn't qualify as Free software at all.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Is it ok for
anyone and everyone to do so with any set of software? Does the current trademark guidelines match the goals of the project?
Honestly, what business is it of yours, how people distribute *unmodified* copies of fedora?
Some modifications are explicitly allowed by the trademark guidelines. My question to the Fedora Project Board was whether it should be.
But you do see, that our point of disagreement is over whether or not what I described was a 'modification'. I.e. your question is irrelevant to the conversation, since no modification is taking place.
Sure I'd love to have a legal license
which states that any free software I write, cannot be used by governments to support in any way whatsoever an institution which engages in 'baiting' tactics that use entrapment as justification for murder, but I'm a realist.
Such a restriction wouldn't qualify as Free software at all.
That was my point.
-dmc
Douglas McClendon wrote:
But you do see, that our point of disagreement is over whether or not what I described was a 'modification'. I.e. your question is irrelevant to the conversation, since no modification is taking place.
I wasn't merely concerned about what you are doing. I was talking about the trademark guideline clauses which allow certain kind of modifications while retaining the name and whether they fit with the current project goals.
Sure I'd love to have a legal license
which states that any free software I write, cannot be used by governments to support in any way whatsoever an institution which engages in 'baiting' tactics that use entrapment as justification for murder, but I'm a realist.
Such a restriction wouldn't qualify as Free software at all.
That was my point.
Copyright licenses and trademark guidelines are two different things. I could for example have Free software with trademark guidelines that didn't allow certain kind of things. If you want to do those things, you merely have to fork like Firefox and IceWeasel. The trademark requirements on Firefox the name does not make Firefox the software non-free.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
But you do see, that our point of disagreement is over whether or not what I described was a 'modification'. I.e. your question is irrelevant to the conversation, since no modification is taking place.
I wasn't merely concerned about what you are doing. I was talking about the trademark guideline clauses which allow certain kind of modifications while retaining the name and whether they fit with the current project goals.
Can you give me an example of a permitted modification that is currently allowed that you think should not be?
Sure I'd love to have a legal license
which states that any free software I write, cannot be used by governments to support in any way whatsoever an institution which engages in 'baiting' tactics that use entrapment as justification for murder, but I'm a realist.
Such a restriction wouldn't qualify as Free software at all.
That was my point.
Copyright licenses and trademark guidelines are two different things. I could for example have Free software with trademark guidelines that didn't allow certain kind of things. If you want to do those things, you merely have to fork like Firefox and IceWeasel. The trademark requirements on Firefox the name does not make Firefox the software non-free.
Can trademark guidelines on free software restrict the ability to redistribuite bit-for-bit copies of the software, that don't use the trademarks in any other way than the fact that they are included in those bits?
-dmc
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
But you do see, that our point of disagreement is over whether or not what I described was a 'modification'. I.e. your question is irrelevant to the conversation, since no modification is taking place.
I wasn't merely concerned about what you are doing. I was talking about the trademark guideline clauses which allow certain kind of modifications while retaining the name and whether they fit with the current project goals.
Can you give me an example of a permitted modification that is currently allowed that you think should not be?
I make no such claims. I just want Fedora Project Board to verify if the trademark guidelines match the project goals and see if any modifications are required in light of the interest in spins and derivatives. It might even be adding more permissions.
Can trademark guidelines on free software restrict the ability to redistribuite bit-for-bit copies of the software, that don't use the trademarks in any other way than the fact that they are included in those bits?
Unlike copyright licenses which are broadly consistent across various regions, trademark and patent laws seem to be quite different in scope. Someone more familiar with US trademark laws would have to answer your question.
I know RHEL has some sort of requirements on plain redistribution based on a couple of non-software packages which contain the Red Hat branded images which appear to based on trademark. So it does seem to be possible but I haven't looked into it in depth.
Rahul
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 11:55:34AM -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Can trademark guidelines on free software restrict the ability to redistribuite bit-for-bit copies of the software, that don't use the trademarks in any other way than the fact that they are included in those bits?
yes, they can, which is why one of the feature of Fedora 8 is to clean up the fedora-logos and redhat-artwork packages, and the addition of the generic-logos package, exactly so one can create a derivative of Fedora using and containing only Free Software, easily, without including the Fedora trademarks.
Matt Domsch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 11:55:34AM -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Can trademark guidelines on free software restrict the ability to redistribuite bit-for-bit copies of the software, that don't use the trademarks in any other way than the fact that they are included in those bits?
yes, they can, which is why one of the feature of Fedora 8 is to clean up the fedora-logos and redhat-artwork packages, and the addition of the generic-logos package, exactly so one can create a derivative of Fedora using and containing only Free Software, easily, without including the Fedora trademarks.
Certainly for derivatives and any other modification, it seems obvious that trademarks are protected. My question rather involved bundling an unmodified copy of free software with other (free and/or non-free) software.
My not-a-lawyer hunch is that the nature of free software suggests that it may be redistributed unmodified in any and all manner. But a hunch is hardly anything to go by.
My scenario involved supplying the end-user with software that makes it dirt-simple (i.e. a bootloader choice) for the end-user to apply patches. This is somewhat similar to the ideas I have heard kicked around regarding supplying kernel modules as source along with scripts that make it as simple for the end-user to turn the source into the binary, which for obscure legal reasons could not be distributed as a binary.
-dmc
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 04:23:33PM -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Matt Domsch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 11:55:34AM -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Can trademark guidelines on free software restrict the ability to redistribuite bit-for-bit copies of the software, that don't use the trademarks in any other way than the fact that they are included in those bits?
yes, they can, which is why one of the feature of Fedora 8 is to clean up the fedora-logos and redhat-artwork packages, and the addition of the generic-logos package, exactly so one can create a derivative of Fedora using and containing only Free Software, easily, without including the Fedora trademarks.
Certainly for derivatives and any other modification, it seems obvious that trademarks are protected. My question rather involved bundling an unmodified copy of free software with other (free and/or non-free) software.
My not-a-lawyer hunch is that the nature of free software suggests that it may be redistributed unmodified in any and all manner. But a hunch is hardly anything to go by.
My scenario involved supplying the end-user with software that makes it dirt-simple (i.e. a bootloader choice) for the end-user to apply patches. This is somewhat similar to the ideas I have heard kicked around regarding supplying kernel modules as source along with scripts that make it as simple for the end-user to turn the source into the binary, which for obscure legal reasons could not be distributed as a binary.
AIUI, the obscure legal reasoning seems to be that if the distribution delivers pre-linked kernel modules, such infringes the kernel's copyright; but if the linking is done by end users, that it somehow doesn't infringe that copyright. I've never been comfortable with this line of thinking myself. If true, it feels like passing the buck, and I grew up in Independence, MO[1].
One challenge to Free Software is that it's based upon copyright law. The other two pillars of "intellectual property law" are patents and trademarks, neither of which are often adequately addressed in copyright licenses, insofar as they're not even mentioned. GNU GPL v2 does include some text regarding patents; v3 even more so. So unless you adequately license patents and trademarks too, copyright licenses don't convey "all" the rights one might need to do "anything you want". GPL doesn't speak to modifications - it's obligations are incurred at point of distribution of the work, modified or not.
[1] Home of Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States. Famous for the saying "the buck stops here".
Matt Domsch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 04:23:33PM -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Matt Domsch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 11:55:34AM -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Can trademark guidelines on free software restrict the ability to redistribuite bit-for-bit copies of the software, that don't use the trademarks in any other way than the fact that they are included in those bits?
yes, they can, which is why one of the feature of Fedora 8 is to clean up the fedora-logos and redhat-artwork packages, and the addition of the generic-logos package, exactly so one can create a derivative of Fedora using and containing only Free Software, easily, without including the Fedora trademarks.
Certainly for derivatives and any other modification, it seems obvious that trademarks are protected. My question rather involved bundling an unmodified copy of free software with other (free and/or non-free) software.
My not-a-lawyer hunch is that the nature of free software suggests that it may be redistributed unmodified in any and all manner. But a hunch is hardly anything to go by.
My scenario involved supplying the end-user with software that makes it dirt-simple (i.e. a bootloader choice) for the end-user to apply patches. This is somewhat similar to the ideas I have heard kicked around regarding supplying kernel modules as source along with scripts that make it as simple for the end-user to turn the source into the binary, which for obscure legal reasons could not be distributed as a binary.
AIUI, the obscure legal reasoning seems to be that if the distribution delivers pre-linked kernel modules, such infringes the kernel's copyright; but if the linking is done by end users, that it somehow doesn't infringe that copyright. I've never been comfortable with this line of thinking myself. If true, it feels like passing the buck, and I grew up in Independence, MO[1].
Sure, but it appears the point is passing the buck of a distributor who is not legally allowed to do something, to the end-user who is legally allowed to do something. The question is, since it is obviously a silly legal hack, whether it should be legal for the distributor to do the patching prior to distribution, or whether it should be illegal for the user to do the patching after distribution.
One challenge to Free Software is that it's based upon copyright law. The other two pillars of "intellectual property law" are patents and trademarks, neither of which are often adequately addressed in copyright licenses, insofar as they're not even mentioned. GNU GPL v2 does include some text regarding patents; v3 even more so. So unless you adequately license patents and trademarks too, copyright licenses don't convey "all" the rights one might need to do "anything you want". GPL doesn't speak to modifications - it's obligations are incurred at point of distribution of the work, modified or not.
From my not-a-lawyer understanding, the trademark issues don't come into play if the trademarks are not actually used in any way other than merely existing as part and parcel of the original software package distributed by the tradmark rights holder.
And yes, then there are patents. Of course the predominant wisdom seems to be that just like the rest of our legal system, the best tactic is to always assume that what you want to do is legal, until someone who can afford more lawyers than you tells you otherwise. Certainly that seems to be the example the executive branch is setting...
-dmc
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
"
Please tell me how my above thoeretical repackaging of fedora does not fall into this *very* explicitly permitted scenario.
The permissions listed was done IIRC to OEM's to do post install modifications such as ship a optional repository of software. The guidelines are a living document and written to state the Fedora Project's position on various things. If they are exploited to do things, Fedora Project does not endorse, they can and will be modified to not permit those activities.
IMO, modifying Fedora to offer Free software with patent restrictions or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I don't think you fully understood what I was describing, or the specific permissions involved.
I meant modification is a broader sense and not just patching some specific software. At any rate, the guidelines must reflect project goals and not vice versa. What you want to do IMO definitely falls outside the scope of the project and must not retain the Fedora name. Now it is upto to Fedora Project Board and Red Hat legal to determine what's acceptable. Let's leave it at that.
I think you are trying to control things that are beyond the scope of the project. I was not advocating any action on the part of the fedora project, I was merely describing what I believed to be legally allowable for any individual to do, in a manner completely detached from the fedora project.
Believe me, if this was something I wanted to personally do, I'd have done it, and not bothered discussing it here.
Certainly it is up the Board and RHLegal to modify existing published documents as they see fit. But I am trying to persuade _you_ Rahul.
I'm trying to persuade you that these permissions are a good thing, and you needn't and shouldn't lobby for them to change to 'protect fedora'. I think the guidelines as they stand were well thought out in the first place, with the intent of 'protecting fedora', and that changing them will serve no useful purpose, other than demonstrating that the fedora project has some control issues on par with GPLv3 (yes, I'm trying to be both serious and humorous as the same time ;)
Please, just accept that what I described is a perfectly valid *use*(!=modification) of fedora, and that the fedora project gains nothing by changing its well laid foundations to prevent further similar *uses* of fedora in the future.
Cheers,
-dmc
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Please, just accept that what I described is a perfectly valid *use*(!=modification) of fedora, and that the fedora project gains nothing by changing its well laid foundations to prevent further similar *uses* of fedora in the future.
Personally, I am not sure what you are proposing is a perfectly valid use and what the legal implications of that are. It maybe that the technical possibility wasn't thought out when the guidelines were written or maybe the nature of the project has drifted off from when the guidelines were originally written. I think we might do well to make sure that those match.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
(The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times before...)
But technology and published legal guidelines change...
C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that include the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )
If this is done, it should be rebranded and not called Fedora.
'should' is one of those words...
By my reading of the current trademark guidelines (before they disappeared from
http://rhold.fedoraproject.org/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/
it is totally possible (with a little initrd guru-dom) to repackage the fedora-8-livecd iso (other isos too, but I'll use this as an example), such that mp3 and rpmfusion(or other arbitrary repos) work 'out of the box'.
Just make a new iso, that contains the old iso as is, with a new initrd and bootloader, that present the user with two choices-
a) "boot the official unmodified fedora-8-live image"
or
b) "boot the official fedora-8-live image, patched with mp3 support and software repository configuration that the fedora organization does not support or condone in any way"
Now that is an viable userfriendly solution if allowed :)
Software that is/has been developed that can be misused to break "laws" tho it's initial creation and function of the software was never indented to do so will never be included in Red Hat/Fedora ( Even tho that package is gpl and source is made publicly available ) made available, in Red Hat/Fedora
Just so things can be settled..
If the software is infringing patents, it cannot be included regardless of it's copyright license.
Given that the fedora trademark guidelines allow the above (seriously they do, I was very surprised when I read them myself), and given that some individuals and organizations may live in different countries, or have lawyers that come to different conclusions about what laws their country permits, I think the above should make everyone happy.
IF allowed +1
No, such software compositions as described above would not be hosted by fedora, but hey, that's what bittorrent is for...
Is int use and hence bittorent becoming illegal now days even tho it's creater never for saw or at least "publicly addmited" to have seen it be misused and used to distribute illegal content ( guess the same thing goes with car manufactures and transporting and distributing drugs ) :)
-dmc
Best regards Johann B.
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
(The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times before...)
But technology and published legal guidelines change...
C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that include the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )
If this is done, it should be rebranded and not called Fedora.
'should' is one of those words...
By my reading of the current trademark guidelines (before they disappeared from
http://rhold.fedoraproject.org/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/
This now exists here though I don't know who maintains it or if it is accurate. Can anyone clarify?
http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/
-Mike
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
(The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times before...)
Things settled once and for all..
With those word said. Is it an official statement from Red Hat/Fedora that proper media suppport and an option that could allow user to do so during install anaconda/firstboot ( disclaimer/user takes responsibility rpmfusion or other 3rd party repo setup for user and user can chose to install "questionable software" packages from there) inclusion or an chose for an user to setup, install or othewize an 3 party repository during installation that may contain questionable" software will never make it into Fedora/Red Hat unless changes in ( US )laws are made.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-September/msg01036.ht...
Can I assume that the same thing applies for CD's that would contain *extra packages* and respins?
( And doesn't Red Hat/Fedora have to blacklist or prevent during installation that the name and paths of known 3 party repostory's from legal perspective otherwise they can be held countable? )
They won't be. The whole point of contributory infringement is that you are contributing to it. Allowing something is different from aiding it.
Ok.
Leaving users and developers with these 3 options..
A. An addon cd that includes the prober media package.
Users are left with the option to find and download an cd that contains the questionable software and can install from/off it
B. User have to install/setup the 3 party respository after initial installation/setup.
Anaconda has the ability to install software off a repository during installation time from Fedora Core 6 onwards.
Somehow I totally missed that, any docs about this I can be redirected to So I can see test and try on noob user to do so, so I see how viable solution it is. we are talking about the first installation scene not after you reboot and go to "first boot" where you can do some additional things? Had noticed you could install extra packages setup repos and that from there..
C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that include the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )
If this is done, it should be rebranded and not called Fedora.
Yes that has already been established many times.. ( and work being developed respins tools that will easy the work in doing so) .
And also how many letters from Fedora name have to be remove so the naming is neutralized ( fedorians, eudora etc... )
Software that is/has been developed that can be misused to break "laws" tho it's initial creation and function of the software was never indented to do so will never be included in Red Hat/Fedora ( Even tho that package is gpl and source is made publicly available ) made available, in Red Hat/Fedora
Just so things can be settled..
If the software is infringing patents, it cannot be included regardless of it's copyright license.
And in the scenario where software is created and a year later less/more something is patent hence the software now breaks the patent what then?
who's in right here the software or the patent?
And if the source of the code is made available could not the patent holders read the source and close "infringing" part in their code that is if we are talking about code and it can be patent ( Yes my knowledge in this are equals to 0 or less, ignorance shining through :) some how my internal logic had made the assumption the same thing as in the rules and regulations that protect writers and their written work would apply to coders and their coded work as well ?
Rahul
Best regards. Johann B.
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
(The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times before...)
Things settled once and for all..
With those word said. Is it an official statement from Red Hat/Fedora that proper media suppport and an option that could allow user to do so during install anaconda/firstboot ( disclaimer/user takes responsibility rpmfusion or other 3rd party repo setup for user and user can chose to install "questionable software" packages from there) inclusion or an chose for an user to setup, install or othewize an 3 party repository during installation that may contain questionable" software will never make it into Fedora/Red Hat unless changes in ( US )laws are made.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-September/msg01036.ht...
Can I assume that the same thing applies for CD's that would contain *extra packages* and respins?
I guess so.
Anaconda has the ability to install software off a repository during installation time from Fedora Core 6 onwards.
Somehow I totally missed that, any docs about this I can be redirected to So I can see test and try on noob user to do so, so I see how viable solution it is. we are talking about the first installation scene not after you reboot and go to "first boot" where you can do some additional things? Had noticed you could install extra packages setup repos and that from there..
Yes. This worked fine for me in Fedora Core 6. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tours/FedoraCore6/005_Install_Add_Repository
And also how many letters from Fedora name have to be remove so the naming is neutralized ( fedorians, eudora etc... )
I am not sure there is a specific limit of words. You should have a name that cannot be confused with the main product so you would have explicitly clarify that what you are creating is not Fedora. I would note there already is derivate called Mythdora however. If you want to play safe, find a different name entirely while specifying somewhere that it is derived from Fedora.
And in the scenario where software is created and a year later less/more something is patent hence the software now breaks the patent what then?
who's in right here the software or the patent?
If you developed your software first and you can demonstrate that to the patent office that is called prior art and will invalidate the patent.
And if the source of the code is made available could not the patent holders read the source and close "infringing" part in their code that is if we are talking about code and it can be patent ( Yes my knowledge in this are equals to 0 or less, ignorance shining through :) some how my internal logic had made the assumption the same thing as in the rules and regulations that protect writers and their written work would apply to coders and their coded work as well ?
If you want to learn about software patents, there are plenty of good references online. Start with
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/007may05/features/ip/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent
Rahul
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:46:59 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
"Put the clay in the hand of the individual and see what he creates without boundary's it's then when the outcome becomes interesting "
You have the clay, and the molding tools. All we ask is that if you color outside the lines you call your work of art something other than Fedora. If your art is interesting, and we can legally reproduce it, maybe we will.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:06:39 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
Think more then 1 user people how where you gonna handle 10000 of spins, or this being develop of not being used and popular...
***sight***
Your entire tirade is flawed. There is no reason why using the graphical and easy to understand Revisor couldn't produce a working kickstart file that can be fed into which ever tool is necessary. One doesn't have to learn kickstart, one doesn't have to learn pungi/livecd, etc...
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
With strictly the media support ( ugly-plugins etc. ) and the rpmfusion repo installed, and excluding AMD and Nvidia drivers will we need Rename the spin or could it be released under Fedora name and artwork? * Legal/others
No. You are including content that is not in Fedora, therefor you cannot use the Fedora trademark and cannot use the trademarked logos. You would have some renaming work ahead of you.
I don't believe this is strictly true. I can't seem to find the correct link with the info from legal, but I'm 99.9% certain that if you find a way to put together an iso which
a) has a complete, identifiable-as-such, copy of 'the fedora software' (which I'll just take as a blessed fedora iso.)
and
b) custom non-blessed patches
and
c) the user can select on boot/install whether or not to boot the pure blessed fedora version, or the patched fedora version with obvious messages that the patches are not blessed,
then this type of composition may in fact use the fedora artwork, etc...
Please don't make an uninformed response to this mail before reading the legal trademark guidlines which specifically mention this 'supplying patches with the blessed fedora that the user may clearly choose, or choose not to use at boot/install time'.
(not a verbatim quote, as all the links in this message which held the new policy are now broken-
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-August/msg02287.html
(another broken link) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines
-dmc
Douglas McClendon (dmc.fedora@filteredperception.org) said:
Links fixed.
Bill
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote :
We gonna start an Rpmfusion Fedora spin giving user the much wanted/needed media support in Fedora.
My take on this (initially posted to the rpmfusion list) :
"We should not. I think it's just not worth it, especially since it would have to be called something completely different, and include non trademarked artwork.
What we need to do is get the feature to use add-on media at installation time working again in Fedora. I had made a proof of concept CD with freshrpms packages which could be used with a Fedora installation a while back, but this has been "broken" ever since anaconda switched to using yum as a backend (AFAIR).
Work will be better spent on fixing Fedora, that way we can just provide an add-on CD which could be used at install time and provide extra categories to pick from in order to install codecs, programs, and of course enable rpmfusion in yum.
FWIW, here is my "announcement" of the CD (it was for FC4) : http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2006-January/013758.html ...notice the absolute zero feedback, though :-("
Matthias
Matthias Saou wrote:
What we need to do is get the feature to use add-on media at installation time working again in Fedora. I had made a proof of concept CD with freshrpms packages which could be used with a Fedora installation a while back, but this has been "broken" ever since anaconda switched to using yum as a backend (AFAIR).
Work will be better spent on fixing Fedora, that way we can just provide an add-on CD which could be used at install time and provide extra categories to pick from in order to install codecs, programs, and of course enable rpmfusion in yum.
Completely agree on this front. A custom spin with different branding and name can be useful for other purposes. Somebody needs to serve as a test case for that.
FWIW, here is my "announcement" of the CD (it was for FC4) : http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2006-January/013758.html ...notice the absolute zero feedback, though :-("
fedora-list might have yielded more feedback. RPMFusion folks might want to try something similar and try it integrate it as well as you can with the releases from Fedora.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Matthias Saou wrote:
What we need to do is get the feature to use add-on media at installation time working again in Fedora. I had made a proof of concept CD with freshrpms packages which could be used with a Fedora installation a while back, but this has been "broken" ever since anaconda switched to using yum as a backend (AFAIR).
Work will be better spent on fixing Fedora, that way we can just provide an add-on CD which could be used at install time and provide extra categories to pick from in order to install codecs, programs, and of course enable rpmfusion in yum.
Completely agree on this front. A custom spin with different branding and name can be useful for other purposes. Somebody needs to serve as a test case for that.
How will it work with crediting the right peoples in such a spin and so on. mean this is not yet another linux distro it is Fedora with extra packages same thing diffrent themes logo name?
Best regards Johann B.
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Completely agree on this front. A custom spin with different branding and name can be useful for other purposes. Somebody needs to serve as a test case for that.
How will it work with crediting the right peoples in such a spin and so on. mean this is not yet another linux distro it is Fedora with extra packages same thing diffrent themes logo name?
Check out the guidelines at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution#head-5a5cea96f0813a2767d5b4e7b215...
Rahul
Matthias Saou wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote :
We gonna start an Rpmfusion Fedora spin giving user the much wanted/needed media support in Fedora.
My take on this (initially posted to the rpmfusion list) :
"We should not. I think it's just not worth it, especially since it would have to be called something completely different, and include non trademarked artwork.
What we need to do is get the feature to use add-on media at installation time working again in Fedora. I had made a proof of concept CD with freshrpms packages which could be used with a Fedora installation a while back, but this has been "broken" ever since anaconda switched to using yum as a backend (AFAIR).
Work will be better spent on fixing Fedora, that way we can just provide an add-on CD which could be used at install time and provide extra categories to pick from in order to install codecs, programs, and of course enable rpmfusion in yum.
You still need to create the cd. You still need to provide the cd which my guess is cant be done on fedoraproject.org
That would be the ideal solution that if you have internet connection you could getting it from there or just choose it in Anaconda ( User provided with some disclaimer accepts it, his responsibility viola ), Guess legal has problem with that other wise I guess it would have been implemented already..
Regarding adding more cd's or *additional cd's* I think is step backwards. ( Any one remembering happy multi floppy diskette time debian/slackware what was it around 10 -15 diskettes But then again I could be the only one who expirienced Bad Sectors through out the years. )
Best regards Johann B.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
We gonna start an Rpmfusion Fedora spin giving user the much wanted/needed media support in Fedora.
With yum based Anaconda, I can add any repos I want to at install time and then select a customized set of packages from all of them. This means that if you produce a CD/DVD that I can download and you put the proper repodata/ (and comps?) on the disc, then I can use it.
But why would you want to produce such an image? It would be out of date before the first person finished downloading it. It might work, as long as people do not include any live over-the-network updated or updates repos in their installs. So, I guess it would be useful when someone has a need to install in an isolated environment/network without Internet access.
So, I'm not sure if it would be that useful or not.
[snip]
It would be interesting download stats Fedora VS Fedora with media support :)
That it would.
If everything is done outside US hosted outside US created outside US how much legal jibber jabber comes from that ? Not for US residents version of Fedora?
I am not a lawyer, I will refrain from sharing any comment in that regard. - -- Lamont Peterson lamont@gurulabs.com Senior Instructor Guru Labs, L.C. [ http://www.GuruLabs.com/ ]
NOTE: All messages from this email address should be digitally signed with my 0xDC0DD409 GPG key. It is available on the pgp.mit.edu keyserver as well as other keyservers that sync with MIT's.
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 10:56 -0600, Lamont Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
We gonna start an Rpmfusion Fedora spin giving user the much wanted/needed media support in Fedora.
With yum based Anaconda, I can add any repos I want to at install time and then select a customized set of packages from all of them. This means that if you produce a CD/DVD that I can download and you put the proper repodata/ (and comps?) on the disc, then I can use it.
Well, except that at that point during the install, we have the CD mounted and so you can't unmount to swap CDs. Changing that probably means committing to partitioning changes sooner (currently, we delay them until right before packages install unless you need early swap) so that we can move the install image to the hard disk. And then there may be a little bit of subtlety in ensuring that the ordering of package installation ends up right. But it's mostly a matter of someone sitting down, writing some code and doing some testing.
But why would you want to produce such an image? It would be out of date before the first person finished downloading it. It might work, as long as people do not include any live over-the-network updated or updates repos in their installs. So, I guess it would be useful when someone has a need to install in an isolated environment/network without Internet access.
So, I'm not sure if it would be that useful or not.
There are a lot of cases like the above where it is useful. Also cases where people only have sporadic network access. Or slower network access and get media from a friend. Or connect via something more esoteric that anaconda doesn't support setting up. So there's definitely value in doing the work
Jeremy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:01:32 -0400 Jeremy Katz katzj@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 10:56 -0600, Lamont Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:57:08 +0000 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
We gonna start an Rpmfusion Fedora spin giving user the much wanted/needed media support in Fedora.
With yum based Anaconda, I can add any repos I want to at install time and then select a customized set of packages from all of them. This means that if you produce a CD/DVD that I can download and you put the proper repodata/ (and comps?) on the disc, then I can use it.
Well, except that at that point during the install, we have the CD mounted and so you can't unmount to swap CDs.
True, and I had thought about that while writing my message and I probably should have mentioned it. Of course, I can't remember the last time I did a CD/DVD install for any of my machines. Gotta love PXE. :)
Changing that probably means committing to partitioning changes sooner
I not sure that it would. After all, yum can deal with swapping CDs and it will ask you for whichever one it wants next, which should also work for multiple-DVD installs as long as there isn't an assumption of how many discs a DVD can install can be. It is nice that it always asks for them in order, as I don't have to think about what disc is going to come next. Even still, I'm sure there would have to be a couple of things to deal with. Someone getting it put together and out there for testing would certainly help nail that down. :)
(currently, we delay them until right before packages install unless you need early swap) so that we can move the install image to the hard disk. And then there may be a little bit of subtlety in ensuring that the ordering of package installation ends up right. But it's mostly a matter of someone sitting down, writing some code and doing some testing.
But why would you want to produce such an image? It would be out of date before the first person finished downloading it. It might work, as long as people do not include any live over-the-network updated or updates repos in their installs. So, I guess it would be useful when someone has a need to install in an isolated environment/network without Internet access.
So, I'm not sure if it would be that useful or not.
There are a lot of cases like the above where it is useful. Also cases where people only have sporadic network access. Or slower network access and get media from a friend. Or connect via something more esoteric that anaconda doesn't support setting up. So there's definitely value in doing the work
Even more good examples. Thanks. :) - -- Lamont Peterson lamont@gurulabs.com Senior Instructor Guru Labs, L.C. [ http://www.GuruLabs.com/ ]
NOTE: All messages from this email address should be digitally signed with my 0xDC0DD409 GPG key. It is available on the pgp.mit.edu keyserver as well as other keyservers that sync with MIT's.
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 16:09 -0600, Lamont Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:01:32 -0400 Jeremy Katz katzj@redhat.com wrote:
Changing that probably means committing to partitioning changes sooner
I not sure that it would. After all, yum can deal with swapping CDs and it will ask you for whichever one it wants next, which should also work for multiple-DVD installs as long as there isn't an assumption of how many discs a DVD can install can be.
The problem is that we have to mount and look at the additional CDs to get their metadata and know what packages are available there. And to do that, we have to transfer stage2 elsewhere. To RAM kind of sucks because it increases the memory requirements by the size of stage2 (~100M) in a case where we're going to need more memory for package metadata and dep solving. Hence, the hard drive, hence partitioning being committed sooner.
Jeremy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:32:42 -0400 Jeremy Katz katzj@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 16:09 -0600, Lamont Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:01:32 -0400 Jeremy Katz katzj@redhat.com wrote:
Changing that probably means committing to partitioning changes sooner
I not sure that it would. After all, yum can deal with swapping CDs and it will ask you for whichever one it wants next, which should also work for multiple-DVD installs as long as there isn't an assumption of how many discs a DVD can install can be.
The problem is that we have to mount and look at the additional CDs to get their metadata and know what packages are available there. And to do that, we have to transfer stage2 elsewhere. To RAM kind of sucks because it increases the memory requirements by the size of stage2 (~100M) in a case where we're going to need more memory for package metadata and dep solving. Hence, the hard drive, hence partitioning being committed sooner.
So, even if it's another 200MB of RAM, is there anything wrong with saying, "If you want to include 'add-on' discs, you need to have X amount of RAM minimum to do the install." ?? After all, I only have 2 machines with less than a GB of RAM anymore (and I wouldn't do add-on discs with those, anyway). - -- Lamont Peterson lamont@gurulabs.com Senior Instructor Guru Labs, L.C. [ http://www.GuruLabs.com/ ]
NOTE: All messages from this email address should be digitally signed with my 0xDC0DD409 GPG key. It is available on the pgp.mit.edu keyserver as well as other keyservers that sync with MIT's.
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 19:19 -0600, Lamont Peterson wrote:
So, even if it's another 200MB of RAM, is there anything wrong with saying, "If you want to include 'add-on' discs, you need to have X amount of RAM minimum to do the install." ?? After all, I only have 2 machines with less than a GB of RAM anymore (and I wouldn't do add-on discs with those, anyway).
The people most likely to want to use add-on discs are the same ones that _don't_ have over a gig of RAM in every machine they use.
Jeremy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:21:10 -0400 Jeremy Katz katzj@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 19:19 -0600, Lamont Peterson wrote:
So, even if it's another 200MB of RAM, is there anything wrong with saying, "If you want to include 'add-on' discs, you need to have X amount of RAM minimum to do the install." ?? After all, I only have 2 machines with less than a GB of RAM anymore (and I wouldn't do add-on discs with those, anyway).
The people most likely to want to use add-on discs are the same ones that _don't_ have over a gig of RAM in every machine they use.
Touche'. - -- Lamont Peterson lamont@gurulabs.com Senior Instructor Guru Labs, L.C. [ http://www.GuruLabs.com/ ]
NOTE: All messages from this email address should be digitally signed with my 0xDC0DD409 GPG key. It is available on the pgp.mit.edu keyserver as well as other keyservers that sync with MIT's.
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johannbg <at> hi.is> writes:
If naming/artwork is changed could we include the AMD and Nvidia drivers?
Fedora naming is not your only worry if you want to do that. Non-GPL kernel modules are almost certainly a violation of the Linux kernel's GPL (version 2) license, especially when distributing them together with the kernel itself. I know some other distros get away with it, but that doesn't make it legal. If you want to know more about this issue, search the net, there have been numerous articles and flamewars written over that subject.
Kevin Kofler
On 29.09.2007 06:19, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johannbg <at> hi.is> writes:
If naming/artwork is changed could we include the AMD and Nvidia drivers?
Fedora naming is not your only worry if you want to do that. Non-GPL kernel modules are almost certainly a violation of the Linux kernel's GPL (version 2) license, especially when distributing them together with the kernel itself. I know some other distros get away with it, but that doesn't make it legal. If you want to know more about this issue, search the net, there have been numerous articles and flamewars written over that subject.
+1 -- as I said on the rpmfusion list already some days ago, there is IMHO and AFAICS no way we can include the kernel part of the AMD or Nvidia drivers together with a potential rpmfusion spin.
CU knurd
-
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" -
Bill Nottingham -
Douglas McClendon -
Hans de Goede -
Jeremy Katz -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
Jesse Keating -
Josh Boyer -
Kevin Kofler -
Lamont R. Peterson -
Matt Domsch -
Matthias Saou -
Mike McGrath -
Nicu Buculei -
Rahul Sundaram -
Seth Vidal -
Thorsten Leemhuis