Re: When to rebrand fedora?
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:19 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark
>> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you
>> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it
>> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session
>> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same
>> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare
>> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?)
>>
>> Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind drinking
>> my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-)
> This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of
> convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be
> working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy
> for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous.
Sorry to reply to myself. I wanted to make it doubly clear that I'm
*only* talking about spins that use non-Fedora bits. The barrier for
spins using only Fedora bits should be as low as possible.
I added this to the dicussion page for the trademarks. If we define a
"SPIN" as something the board approves of and devotes resources too,
then I am also interested in appliances/usbs which are done by third
parties. Having the "based on" mark would be great.
-- bk