3:13 p.m.
Hello All,
I would like to propose a new mailing list called "fedora-distributor-list"
where we can discuss issues on distributing fedora project.
Thomas Chung
2:16 p.m.
seth vidal wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 16:13, Thomas Chung wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>I would like to propose a new mailing list called "fedora-distributor-list"
>where we can discuss issues on distributing fedora project.
>
+1 - it'd be useful to have another list to keep fedora-devel more on
topic.
there is a fedora-list at http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
why other?
--
Smoking Crack Often
2:50 p.m.
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 15:16, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 16:13, Thomas Chung wrote:
>
>>Hello All,
>>
>>I would like to propose a new mailing list called
"fedora-distributor-list"
>>where we can discuss issues on distributing fedora project.
>>
>
>
> +1 - it'd be useful to have another list to keep fedora-devel more on
> topic.
there is a fedora-list at http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
why other?
b/c perchance the discussion of people wanting to distribute fedora
would be off-subject or overly-noisy there too.
-sv
4:50 p.m.
As Fedora Project grows, I believe a separate mailing list will be needed for
specific purpose.
We already have mailing list for "testers/users", "developer" and
"documentator" but I don't see one for "distributors"
The idea is from OpenOffice.org CD-ROM project where people will be provided
with all necessary templates, graphics and even marketing material such as
banner to promote the project.
See this link for more information - http://distribution.openoffice.org/cdrom/
I hope this will ease the pain and any conflicts between Red Hat and CD-ROM
distributors.
Thomas Chung
---------- Original Message -----------
From: Xose Vazquez Perez <xose(a)wanadoo.es>
To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
Sent: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:16:48 +0200
Subject: Re: Proposal: fedora-distributor-list
seth vidal wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 16:13, Thomas Chung wrote:
>
>>Hello All,
>>
>>I would like to propose a new mailing list called
"fedora-distributor-list"
>>where we can discuss issues on distributing fedora project.
>>
>
>
> +1 - it'd be useful to have another list to keep fedora-devel more on
> topic.
there is a fedora-list at
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
why other?
--
Smoking Crack Often
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
------- End of Original
Message -------
5:27 p.m.
Thomas Chung (tchung(a)openwebmail.com) said:
See this link for more information -
http://distribution.openoffice.org/cdrom/
One thing you may be interested in is the trademark guidelines at:
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/
They are different than the guidelines were for Red Hat Linux.
Bill
8:02 p.m.
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 18:27, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thomas Chung (tchung(a)openwebmail.com) said:
> See this link for more information - http://distribution.openoffice.org/cdrom/
One thing you may be interested in is the trademark guidelines at:
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/
They are different than the guidelines were for Red Hat Linux.
I know it's a bit a off topic to extend this discussion, (perhaps we
should start a fedora-legal list), but I don't find these guidelines any
more permissive than those for the Red Hat trademark itself. Anyone
care to point out any difference in substance between the above link and
http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/index.html?
A bit disappointing, if you ask me. Frankly, I find it totally
strange to call it something like "Fedora Core" if no one can say that
his product is "based on Fedora Core." Might as well leave of the
"Core" altogether and just call it Fedora.
/me is a little bit bummed
HOWEVER, I'm not as bummed as I was planning on if this turned out to
be the case. ;-) Desktop/LX, Lycoris, Xandros, and Lindows all get
along just fine without saying "based on Debian," so I think the
different players can get along fine building on Fedora Core without
ever using the name.
But still having to create a whole slew of new images to replace
anaconda-images and redhat-logos is highly discouraging. So consider
this my plea for any artists who might want to contribute to The Fedora
Project to come up with generic non-trademarked replacements. That way,
at least those of us who can't afford to hire a graphics artist can at
least only replace a few images at a time before modifying and
redistributing the release with our own branding.
--
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
9:05 p.m.
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 21:02, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
[snip]
should start a fedora-legal list), but I don't find these
guidelines any
more permissive than those for the Red Hat trademark itself. Anyone
Alright, after re-reading the Fedora trademark guidelines, I can see
it's a *little* more permissive. At least you can now downloaded the
isos and burn them, unmodified, to CD and sell them as "Fedora Core."
--
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
5:09 a.m.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 06:27:13PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thomas Chung (tchung(a)openwebmail.com) said:
> See this link for more information - http://distribution.openoffice.org/cdrom/
One thing you may be interested in is the trademark guidelines at:
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/
Apologies if this is a rehash from when the original Red Hat(R)
discussions went on.
One of the things which confuses me is that it's possible to go two
different install routes to get the the same place, yet one can be
Fedora and one can't - at least from my own reading of this.
Take for example:
1) Fedora Core installed via kickstart off official media
2) Update Fedora Core errata/updates via yum/up2date/apt/hand
Then if I produce a modified single disk kickstart installer (not for
distribution) which has Fedora updates merged in, do I then have to
remove any fedora trademarks from that installer image.
If I read this correctly that could be construed as modification,
although the components are all under the Fedora(tm) code. I've a
feeling this could be called Fedora Core.
I then go on and add a non-fedora package using yum/up2date/apt if I do
this after install, I still have a fedora system just with a third party
package. If I do this in the kickstart image I'd say that then probably
ceases to be Fedora. Which if I want to produce kickstart images for a
large number of internal servers then I have to ensure that the
Fedora(tm) is removed from the kickstart?
In which case I can simply configure up2date/yum as part of the
kickstart and on first boot install the non-Fedora package, it seems as
if I'm making a kickstart image and want to be able to say to my
co-worker, it's Fedora I have to jump through hoops in order to be able
to to that.
Paul
12:19 p.m.
This is an excellent example why we should have fedora-distributor-list.
We can discuss the official Fedora distribution and custom Fedora distribution
as well as HOWTO which will benefit not only CD-ROM vendors but System
Administrators.
Thomas Chung
---------- Original Message -----------
From: Paul Nasrat <pauln(a)truemesh.com>
To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
Sent: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:09:19 +0100
Subject: Re: Proposal: fedora-distributor-list
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 06:27:13PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Thomas Chung (tchung(a)openwebmail.com) said:
> > See this link for more information -
http://distribution.openoffice.org/cdrom/
>
> One thing you may be interested in is the trademark guidelines at:
>
> http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/
Apologies if this is a rehash from when the original Red Hat(R)
discussions went on.
One of the things which confuses me is that it's possible to go two
different install routes to get the the same place, yet one can be
Fedora and one can't - at least from my own reading of this.
Take for example:
1) Fedora Core installed via kickstart off official media
2) Update Fedora Core errata/updates via yum/up2date/apt/hand
Then if I produce a modified single disk kickstart installer (not for
distribution) which has Fedora updates merged in, do I then have to
remove any fedora trademarks from that installer image.
If I read this correctly that could be construed as modification,
although the components are all under the Fedora(tm) code. I've a
feeling this could be called Fedora Core.
I then go on and add a non-fedora package using yum/up2date/apt if I
do this after install, I still have a fedora system just with a
third party package. If I do this in the kickstart image I'd say
that then probably ceases to be Fedora. Which if I want to produce
kickstart images for a large number of internal servers then I have
to ensure that the Fedora(tm) is removed from the kickstart?
In which case I can simply configure up2date/yum as part of the
kickstart and on first boot install the non-Fedora package, it seems
as if I'm making a kickstart image and want to be able to say to my
co-worker, it's Fedora I have to jump through hoops in order to be able
to to that.
Paul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
------- End of Original
Message -------
8:15 p.m.
Yes, I know many people hate top-reply, but this is not a line-by
line reply...
The next site update (probably tomorrow morning) will have updated
trademark guidelines that address some of these concerns. Particularly
the concerns about shipping updates and extras along with the
distribution. I'd summarize the changes but I'd get the summary
wrong, and we're talking legal language here so I'd rather not get
myself in trouble. :-)
michaelkjohnson
"He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book."
Linux Application Development -- Ben Franklin
http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:09:19AM +0100, Paul Nasrat wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 06:27:13PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Thomas Chung (tchung(a)openwebmail.com) said:
> > See this link for more information -
http://distribution.openoffice.org/cdrom/
>
> One thing you may be interested in is the trademark guidelines at:
>
> http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/
Apologies if this is a rehash from when the original Red Hat(R)
discussions went on.
One of the things which confuses me is that it's possible to go two
different install routes to get the the same place, yet one can be
Fedora and one can't - at least from my own reading of this.
Take for example:
1) Fedora Core installed via kickstart off official media
2) Update Fedora Core errata/updates via yum/up2date/apt/hand
Then if I produce a modified single disk kickstart installer (not for
distribution) which has Fedora updates merged in, do I then have to
remove any fedora trademarks from that installer image.
If I read this correctly that could be construed as modification,
although the components are all under the Fedora(tm) code. I've a
feeling this could be called Fedora Core.
I then go on and add a non-fedora package using yum/up2date/apt if I do
this after install, I still have a fedora system just with a third party
package. If I do this in the kickstart image I'd say that then probably
ceases to be Fedora. Which if I want to produce kickstart images for a
large number of internal servers then I have to ensure that the
Fedora(tm) is removed from the kickstart?
In which case I can simply configure up2date/yum as part of the
kickstart and on first boot install the non-Fedora package, it seems as
if I'm making a kickstart image and want to be able to say to my
co-worker, it's Fedora I have to jump through hoops in order to be able
to to that.
Paul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
7514
days inactive
7518
days old
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Bill Nottingham -
Michael K. Johnson -
Paul Iadonisi -
Paul Nasrat -
seth vidal -
Thomas Chung -
Xose Vazquez Perez