On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Miller
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:18:58PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> I think you either need to use the Fedora Remix mark or go through the
> process of creating a new secondary mark, because you're talking about
> distributing "things" that are marked in a way that implies that Fedora
> made them, even if they're not at the same supported level.
> I don't think its a problem to have Fedora people making Remixes.
> If you create a new secondary mark, the existing trademark guidelines
> would need to be amended to reflect it.
Thanks Tom. I'll start exploring that, then, because I definitely want
something "closer" than Remix implies. Particularly, I'd like to keep
some of the guarantees that Remix does not provide, like "100% free and
open source software that is legally redistributable everywhere in the
world". It also might apply to services, or maybe even things which
contain _zero_ traditional-official-Fedora software, both of which I
think would be straining the idea of "Remix".
Most people wouldn't create another secondary mark for that. They'd
come up with a name for the project and simply slap "Beta" at the end
of it. It's a pretty typical convention at this point, and people are
likely to be less confused than having 3 "official" Fedora marks that
all mean different things. Particularly if the two "secondary" marks
have any overlap.