8:27 a.m.
I have a question. The other day I put out a sugar desktop appliance [1]
based on F9. It was pointed out that I violated the fedora trademark
policies. I did some digging, and the relevant page seems to be [2].
My question is what is a "modification". If you look at my kickstart
file [3], you see that I did 2 things which could be it:
a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora (xulrunner)
b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo
Does anyone know which item (a or b) was the actual issue? I bring this
up here since as ISVs begin to get more integrated with fedora, it is
possible that they will ship appliances, live-cds, live-usbs, install
media, etc. It would be nice to know when it is necessary to re-brand to
stay in compliance with the trademark guidelines.
BTW.. it was pretty easy to rebrand the appliance, so this is not an
issue of effort.. more of clarity.
-- bk
[1] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugarAppliance.tar.gz
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html
[3] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugar.ks
11:42 a.m.
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 09:27 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora
(xulrunner)
b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo
Does anyone know which item (a or b) was the actual issue?
Right now, both a and b are problems. We're currently trying to fix the
trademark guidelines so that we're more flexible in cases like this.
~spot
1:48 p.m.
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 09:27 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora
> (xulrunner)
> b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo
>
> Does anyone know which item (a or b) was the actual issue?
Right now, both a and b are problems. We're currently trying to fix the
trademark guidelines so that we're more flexible in cases like this.
to be clear, "a" and "b" require rebranding?
-- bk
1:55 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 14:48 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 09:27 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>> a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora
>> (xulrunner)
>> b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo
>>
>> Does anyone know which item (a or b) was the actual issue?
>
> Right now, both a and b are problems. We're currently trying to fix the
> trademark guidelines so that we're more flexible in cases like this.
to be clear, "a" and "b" require rebranding?
Yes.
A) Because you added a package that isn't from Fedora.
B) Because you added a package that isn't from Fedora.
~spot
2:10 p.m.
In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not
provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the
kickstart file
+generic-release
+generic-logos
-fedora-release
-fedora-logos
-fedora-release-notes
-- bk
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 14:48 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 09:27 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>>> a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora
>>> (xulrunner)
>>> b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo
>>>
>>> Does anyone know which item (a or b) was the actual issue?
>> Right now, both a and b are problems. We're currently trying to fix the
>> trademark guidelines so that we're more flexible in cases like this.
>
> to be clear, "a" and "b" require rebranding?
Yes.
A) Because you added a package that isn't from Fedora.
B) Because you added a package that isn't from Fedora.
~spot
5:44 p.m.
Bryan Kearney wrote:
In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to
not
provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the
kickstart file
We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as
of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are
all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible
for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!" message when
you boot up.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
5:49 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Bryan Kearney wrote:
> In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not
> provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the
> kickstart file
>
We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as
of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are
all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible
for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!" message
when
you boot up.
Wouldn't this make sense to do, though? Especially seeing as how the
name "Fedora" is part of the trademark.
--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
2:48 a.m.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Bryan Kearney wrote:
>> In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not
>> provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the
>> kickstart file
>>
> We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as
> of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are
> all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible
> for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!" message
when
> you boot up.
Wouldn't this make sense to do, though? Especially seeing as how the
name "Fedora" is part of the trademark.
I'm CC:'ing the Fedora Spins list for other people that might show
interest in this discussion.
To me it doesn't make sense removing fedora-release from a downstream
distribution and then still say "based on Fedora" or "Fedora
derivative". This, in my opinion, should not be a requirement. I'd like
to enable people to do it anyway, with the click of a mouse, but it's
not that simple at this point.
Fwiw the Fedora Spin SIG only requires new spin concepts that do not yet
have Board Approval to exclude fedora-logos from their package manifest.
Requiring anything more then that also involves more work for the spin
requester/maintainer (and a little more for the Spin SIG as well).
How we handle fedora-release being the cause for "Welcome to (...)" is
also a thread on -devel, and afaic is a cosmetic thing for downstream
distributions, not a requirement from Fedora (IMO).
Taking this a little further, the trademark policy can simply not
require a downstream distribution to remove all occurrences of the
Fedora trademark (as a string) from the entire system. Although I'd like
to enable them to do so, it's simply not scalable to keep track of where
the Fedora name might occur in a package name, file name or file contents.
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 ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/NewTrademarkGuidelines
6:03 a.m.
New subject: [Fedora-spins] When to rebrand fedora?
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> Bryan Kearney wrote:
>>> In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not
>>> provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the
>>> kickstart file
>>>
>> We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as
>> of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are
>> all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible
>> for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!"
message when
>> you boot up.
> Wouldn't this make sense to do, though? Especially seeing as how the
> name "Fedora" is part of the trademark.
>
I'm CC:'ing the Fedora Spins list for other people that might show
interest in this discussion.
To me it doesn't make sense removing fedora-release from a downstream
distribution and then still say "based on Fedora" or "Fedora
derivative". This, in my opinion, should not be a requirement. I'd like
to enable people to do it anyway, with the click of a mouse, but it's
not that simple at this point.
Yeah! +1
Fwiw the Fedora Spin SIG only requires new spin concepts that do not
yet
have Board Approval to exclude fedora-logos from their package manifest.
Requiring anything more then that also involves more work for the spin
requester/maintainer (and a little more for the Spin SIG as well).
...and I'm happy that's the way it is :)
The Spin SIG already helped to simplify things significantly. So let's
not make it more complicated than we need to do. Just let me cite Jeff,
who stated some time ago on devel-list:
> Fact 0:
> We want people to build quality spins.
> Fact 1:
> our spin creation tools are make it dirt simple to create spins, but
> we still need a best-practices approach with human review to ensure
> quality.
> Fact 2:
> We do not have the resource to build and host every possible spin
> that the community is interested in building.
How we handle fedora-release being the cause for "Welcome to
(...)" is
also a thread on -devel, and afaic is a cosmetic thing for downstream
distributions, not a requirement from Fedora (IMO).
Taking this a little further, the trademark policy can simply not
require a downstream distribution to remove all occurrences of the
Fedora trademark (as a string) from the entire system. Although I'd like
to enable them to do so, it's simply not scalable to keep track of where
the Fedora name might occur in a package name, file name or file contents.
I mean, we're not going to build the next CentOS or anything like this,
are we? Just take the folks there as an example: They need weeks or even
months for rebuilding the OS. Maybe this example isn't really fitting
here... but I agree with Jeroen - it might be almost impossible to wipe
the name Fedora from the whole distribution just for respinning it.
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?)
+1
This sounds really reasonable! If this would be well defined and then
added to the trademark policy, it would be, in my opinion, a real
improvement.
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 ;-)
/me gotta run for a cup of coffee, too ;)
Best Regards,
Sebastian Dziallas
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/NewTrademarkGuidelines
_______________________________________________
Fedora-spins mailing list
Fedora-spins(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-spins
6:35 a.m.
New subject: [Fedora-spins] When to rebrand fedora?
Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>>> Bryan Kearney wrote:
<SNIP>
> 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?)
+1
This sounds really reasonable! If this would be well defined and then
added to the trademark policy, it would be, in my opinion, a real
improvement.
So.. I kicked this off on the ISV list, and here was the original scenario.
<orig>
I have a question. The other day I put out a sugar desktop appliance [1]
based on F9. It was pointed out that I violated the fedora trademark
policies. I did some digging, and the relevant page seems to be [2].
My question is what is a "modification". If you look at my kickstart
file [3], you see that I did 2 things which could be it:
a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora (xulrunner)
b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo
[1] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugarAppliance.tar.gz
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html
[3] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugar.ks
<orig>
My hope was that item (a) caused me to have to re-brand not item (b).
Since item (b) is what would be required for appliances and live cds. It
sounds like both A and B are issues. I will put these on the new
guidelines pages to disucss.
-- bk
7:04 a.m.
New subject: [Fedora-spins] When to rebrand fedora?
Bryan Kearney wrote:
Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>>>> Bryan Kearney wrote:
<SNIP>
>> 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?)
>
> +1
>
> This sounds really reasonable! If this would be well defined and then
> added to the trademark policy, it would be, in my opinion, a real
> improvement.
So.. I kicked this off on the ISV list, and here was the original scenario.
<orig>
I have a question. The other day I put out a sugar desktop appliance [1]
based on F9. It was pointed out that I violated the fedora trademark
policies. I did some digging, and the relevant page seems to be [2].
My question is what is a "modification". If you look at my kickstart
file [3], you see that I did 2 things which could be it:
a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora (xulrunner)
b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo
[1] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugarAppliance.tar.gz
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html
[3] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugar.ks
<orig>
My hope was that item (a) caused me to have to re-brand not item (b).
Since item (b) is what would be required for appliances and live cds. It
sounds like both A and B are issues. I will put these on the new
guidelines pages to disucss.
-- bk
Well... if I got it right - and feel free to correct me ;) - the current
situation is that item (a) and (b) both force you to rebrand your spin
/ appliance, since they are non-Fedora bits :(
I had the same situation two weeks ago or so. I had created an education
spin using an external repository, since we wanted to use already KDE
4.1. But I didn't remove fedora-logos, so we needed to "pull the plug".
(http://sdziallas.joyeurs.com/blog/2008/07/pulling-the-plug.html)
I'm really in favor of such a trademark policy change, since it
simplifies the whole thing quite a lot. One wouldn't need to rebrand the
whole spin, when it stays non-public. At least, a kind of clarification
on this topic would be definitely useful, since apparently, I'm not the
only one, who didn't remove fedora-logos at first. Well, you asked for
clarification, but I think this should be clearly stated somewhere in
the wiki, in which cases one needs to rebrand - or not.
Sebastian
7:19 a.m.
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> Bryan Kearney wrote:
>>> In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not
>>> provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the
>>> kickstart file
>>>
>> We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as
>> of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are
>> all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible
>> for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!"
message when
>> you boot up.
>
> Wouldn't this make sense to do, though? Especially seeing as how the
> name "Fedora" is part of the trademark.
>
I'm CC:'ing the Fedora Spins list for other people that might show
interest in this discussion.
To me it doesn't make sense removing fedora-release from a downstream
distribution and then still say "based on Fedora" or "Fedora
derivative". This, in my opinion, should not be a requirement. I'd like
to enable people to do it anyway, with the click of a mouse, but it's
not that simple at this point.
I wasn't sure of the complexity required to create such a solution.
Fwiw the Fedora Spin SIG only requires new spin concepts that do not
yet
have Board Approval to exclude fedora-logos from their package manifest.
Requiring anything more then that also involves more work for the spin
requester/maintainer (and a little more for the Spin SIG as well).
How we handle fedora-release being the cause for "Welcome to (...)" is
also a thread on -devel, and afaic is a cosmetic thing for downstream
distributions, not a requirement from Fedora (IMO).
Agreed, the cosmetic solution might simply be to change /etc/issue, or
some such other downstream bit.
Taking this a little further, the trademark policy can simply not
require a downstream distribution to remove all occurrences of the
Fedora trademark (as a string) from the entire system. Although I'd like
to enable them to do so, it's simply not scalable to keep track of where
the Fedora name might occur in a package name, file name or file contents.
Yes, I think this would be an onerous and extremely unworkable
requirement too. I was only thinking of the case in derivative spins
that use non-Fedora stuff, where we don't want users confused as to
where they're going to get help. This discussion has been hashed over
many times so there's no need to have it again here, I guess... :-) The
new trademark guidelines (hopefully) will make it possible to allow a
better connection to Fedora as the upstream but still make it clear that
a distro is derived from Fedora and is not itself Fedora.
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.
--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
7:28 a.m.
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.
--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
8:20 a.m.
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
9:36 a.m.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> To me it doesn't make sense removing fedora-release from a downstream
> distribution and then still say "based on Fedora" or "Fedora
> derivative". This, in my opinion, should not be a requirement. I'd like
> to enable people to do it anyway, with the click of a mouse, but it's
> not that simple at this point.
I wasn't sure of the complexity required to create such a solution.
It means building the foo-release RPM, which cannot simply be done with
a mouse-click (yet).
Some more complexity wrt rebranding is explained in one of my blog posts;
http://kanarip.livejournal.com/2222.html
and it's the top of the iceberg.
> Taking this a little further, the trademark policy can simply not
> require a downstream distribution to remove all occurrences of the
> Fedora trademark (as a string) from the entire system. Although I'd like
> to enable them to do so, it's simply not scalable to keep track of where
> the Fedora name might occur in a package name, file name or file contents.
Yes, I think this would be an onerous and extremely unworkable
requirement too. I was only thinking of the case in derivative spins
that use non-Fedora stuff, where we don't want users confused as to
where they're going to get help. This discussion has been hashed over
many times so there's no need to have it again here, I guess... :-) The
new trademark guidelines (hopefully) will make it possible to allow a
better connection to Fedora as the upstream but still make it clear that
a distro is derived from Fedora and is not itself Fedora.
Yes, the "based on Fedora" use case, which I think could be implemented
from a technical point of view so that a derivative:
- may have fedora-release, but then needs to
$ sed -i -e 's/Fedora/Foo/g' /etc/fedora-release
and needs another package, foo-release, to install the additional
resources in terms of RPM-GPG keys and repository configuration.
== or ==
- does not use fedora-release and fully enables their foo-release to
have all the content needed.
> 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?)
>
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.
Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right
terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that
matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to
rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing
fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other
distributions to use or derive from.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
11:19 a.m.
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right
terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that
matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to
rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing
fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other
distributions to use or derive from.
so.. I would like to see a fedora-based-logos which gives a fedora
branded look, but makes it clear there are new items on top. If they
change something in fedora, use generic-logos
This assumes we have a valid "based on" concept in the trademark guide.
-- bk
8:54 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen 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?)
>>
>
> 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.
>
Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right
terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that
matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to
rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing
fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other
distributions to use or derive from.
I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB
case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely
outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material
there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would think
that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would
affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that
external space. This is just a preliminary thought.
--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
2:50 a.m.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen 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?)
>>>
>> 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.
>>
> Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right
> terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that
> matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to
> rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing
> fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other
> distributions to use or derive from.
I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB
case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely
outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material
there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would think
that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would
affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that
external space. This is just a preliminary thought.
Presentations, yes. Video demo's, yes. Placing a file on the desktop
though is just as trivially impacting Fedora (eg. none at all) as
placing it on the medium. Just a thought.
Now I want to demo a failover cluster with FooApp failing over nice and
clean. Or, I want to pull someone from the audience and boot his/her
laptop to join a cluster (again FooApp). These demo's will be given all
over Europe maybe, at events, private training sessions (where students
take the CD/USB key home for further practice?), and partners and
distributors.
Just to clarify, this is what I had meant by using the word "demo" ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
6:02 a.m.
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen 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?)
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right
>> terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that
>> matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation,
>> to rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content.
>> Replacing fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go
>> to other distributions to use or derive from.
>
> I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB
> case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely
> outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material
> there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would
think
> that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would
> affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that
> external space. This is just a preliminary thought.
>
Presentations, yes. Video demo's, yes. Placing a file on the desktop
though is just as trivially impacting Fedora (eg. none at all) as
placing it on the medium. Just a thought.
Now I want to demo a failover cluster with FooApp failing over nice and
clean. Or, I want to pull someone from the audience and boot his/her
laptop to join a cluster (again FooApp). These demo's will be given all
over Europe maybe, at events, private training sessions (where students
take the CD/USB key home for further practice?), and partners and
distributors.
Just to clarify, this is what I had meant by using the word "demo" ;-)
Kind regards,
Heck... why limit to demos? It could be that someone releases an open
source Alfresco appliance for real use.
-- bk
6:34 a.m.
Bryan Kearney wrote:
Heck... why limit to demos? It could be that someone releases an open
source Alfresco appliance for real use.
I'll take two examples; a collaborative, calendering and mail server
solution (named "product" for convenience), and a (simple?)
DHCP/DNS/Network appliance piece of hardware (named "appliance" for
convenience).
The obvious differences are:
- demo'ing a product in a certain setup as opposed to releasing it, and
- demo'ing a product that uses Linux as the (preferred?) operating
system, as opposed to releasing that product, which usually doesn't come
with the Linux operating system, let alone Fedora, and
- demo'ing or releasing an appliance product (the completely different
line of products), where the operating system doesn't actually matter or
it wouldn't be an appliance in the first place. Take this with a grain
of salt as we all know we're trying to first establish a "de-facto
standard" for a minimal Base OS third parties can build their appliance
on top of, while, from a different perspective, a real appliance is not
a "yum install" the way we are used to within Fedora, and should involve
recompiling the software for purposes such as optimization and
stability. Kind of a moot point in this discussion, but I hope you
appreciate where I see a difference between the two (eg. "product" and
appliance).
In the first two cases ("product") you don't care which distribution
runs your demo you're just gonna want to take the most convenient (and
I'd like to see Fedora have the upper hand there, from both the
advertising, marketing as well as the potential revenue of ISV's getting
involved in Fedora -just because we do things right this means revenue
for all of FOSS), without requiring rebranding.
In the latter case you do care which distribution you base the appliance
on, and you do want to rebrand, no matter what the effort might involve.
Still, Fedora should have the upper hand here in that it should be the
overall easiest, but it's an entirely different target audience, with
different demands, wishes, targets, audiences and products. Like I
suggested, once we enable re-compilation of software, but even before,
it is not Fedora anymore, and it's entirely different and we do want to
require rebranding.
I hope some of this makes sense I don't feel I'm able to make myself as
clear as I want to.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
6:01 a.m.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen 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?)
>>>
>> 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.
>>
> Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right
> terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that
> matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to
> rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing
> fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other
> distributions to use or derive from.
I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB
case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely
outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material
there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would think
that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would
affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that
external space. This is just a preliminary thought.
We give them the powser to build any packages into the live-usb and
appliances. So I would sugest that any trademark solution address the
idea that friends of ferdora will be build these and we want them to say
"I built this on Fedora" but not "This is fedora"
-- bk
7:16 a.m.
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 07:01 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen 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?)
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right
>> terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that
>> matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to
>> rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing
>> fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other
>> distributions to use or derive from.
>
> I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB
> case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely
> outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material
> there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would
think
> that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would
> affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that
> external space. This is just a preliminary thought.
We give them the powser to build any packages into the live-usb and
appliances. So I would sugest that any trademark solution address the
idea that friends of ferdora will be build these and we want them to say
"I built this on Fedora" but not "This is fedora"
That's exactly what the "Fedora Upstream"-type marking and the new
guidelines are intended to do.
--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
8:12 a.m.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 07:01 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>>> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen 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?)
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right
>>> terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that
>>> matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to
>>> rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing
>>> fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other
>>> distributions to use or derive from.
>> I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB
>> case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely
>> outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material
>> there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would
think
>> that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would
>> affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that
>> external space. This is just a preliminary thought.
>
> We give them the powser to build any packages into the live-usb and
> appliances. So I would sugest that any trademark solution address the
> idea that friends of ferdora will be build these and we want them to say
> "I built this on Fedora" but not "This is fedora"
That's exactly what the "Fedora Upstream"-type marking and the new
guidelines are intended to do.
If you move them to "Unregulated" then I am happy with it!
-- bk
5752
days inactive
5754
days old
isv-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
22 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Bryan Kearney -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
Paul W. Frields -
Sebastian Dziallas -
Tom Callaway