My question, which I think should be answered in the docs (it isn't is it?) is this-
What if any requirements does the fedora project put on someone distributing an iso generated with kadischi?
Does the full spectrum of removing the artwork/trademarks that is associated with creating a fedora derivative distribution apply?
If so, I suggest adding a post install script which does this for the user automatically (instead of disabling their firewall ;), or adding big FAT warnings telling people that they cannot redistribute kadsichi output.
-jdog
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Jane Dogalt wrote:
My question, which I think should be answered in the docs (it isn't is it?) is this-
What if any requirements does the fedora project put on someone distributing an iso generated with kadischi?
Does the full spectrum of removing the artwork/trademarks that is associated with creating a fedora derivative distribution apply?
If so, I suggest adding a post install script which does this for the user automatically (instead of disabling their firewall ;), or adding big FAT warnings telling people that they cannot redistribute kadsichi output.
-jdog
To my knowledge it is fine, as long as you are not claiming what you have is in fact Fedora Core GOLD releases or RAWHIDE trees, say if you add your own packages, etc. If this is a severe worry of yours, you might try contacting Karsten Wade or Bill Nottingham at Redhat, Inc. or another individual related with the Fedora Project that has information on this.
J. Hartline
On Monday 20 March 2006 20:32, Jane Dogalt jdogalt@yahoo.com wrote:
My question, which I think should be answered in the docs (it isn't is it?) is this-
What if any requirements does the fedora project put on someone distributing an iso generated with kadischi?
Does the full spectrum of removing the artwork/trademarks that is associated with creating a fedora derivative distribution apply?
Without separate, explicit usage approval, yes. You cannot distribute such live CDs as "Fedora". Future guidelines may relax the restrictions, but these productions are not redistributable without permission until then. To request approval for specific usage cases, contact legal@fedoraproject.org, which will actually go to Greg DeKoenigsberg right now.
If so, I suggest adding a post install script which does this for the user automatically (instead of disabling their firewall ;), or adding big FAT warnings telling people that they cannot redistribute kadsichi output.
It would be wise to point to the existing legal documentation that covers this issue, including the Trademark Guidelines and logo usage information.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal
Patrick Barnes wrote:
If so, I suggest adding a post install script which does this for the user automatically (instead of disabling their firewall ;), or adding big FAT warnings telling people that they cannot redistribute kadsichi output.
It would be wise to point to the existing legal documentation that covers this issue, including the Trademark Guidelines and logo usage information.
Chitlesh, is it possible we can get a final drafts of the documents included in the bootsplash/ Have someone from the docs committe or Greg DeKoenigsberg review them. They aren't too long, and should probably be tweaked, I know the spacings are roasted.
I can fix the formatting and spacing while I'm there, and we can get this sorted. The important things are the text, only. I can handle the rest.
J. Hartline
Chitlesh, is it possible we can get a final drafts of the documents included in the bootsplash/ Have someone from the docs committe or Greg DeKoenigsberg review them. They aren't too long, and should probably be tweaked, I know the spacings are roasted.
I can fix the formatting and spacing while I'm there, and we can get this sorted. The important things are the text, only. I can handle the rest.
J. Hartline
Yes, Ill do it.
On 3/21/06, Jane Dogalt jdogalt@yahoo.com wrote:
My question, which I think should be answered in the docs (it isn't is it?) is this-
What if any requirements does the fedora project put on someone distributing an iso generated with kadischi?
Does the full spectrum of removing the artwork/trademarks that is associated with creating a fedora derivative distribution apply?
Good point indeed!
I think we need something like this http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ChitleshGoorah/legal
Please have a look and review it, Ive asked nman on irc and greg too
afterwards, Ill move it to Kadischi/Legal
If so, I suggest adding a post install script which does this for the user automatically (instead of disabling their firewall ;), or adding big FAT warnings telling people that they cannot redistribute kadsichi output.
-jdog
Someone before my participation to this project, has added "make SELinux work on live system" to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Schedule
I think there was something wrong with SELinux on Live CDs.
Does it now? I haven't yet look deeply at it.
Chitlesh Goorah -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com
Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
Someone before my participation to this project, has added "make SELinux work on live system" to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Schedule
I think there was something wrong with SELinux on Live CDs.
Does it now? I haven't yet look deeply at it.
I believe that was a general statement, as in some aspects of SELinux may not work in readonly-root environment.
I can predispose they didn't mean just "label files as is stock in Fedora Core". Which would be fixed when RPM knows how to distribute files with contexts in it's payload. I too should look more into this as I haven't yet built any with SELinux enabled.
J. Hartline
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 19:06 -0500, J. Hartline wrote:
Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
Someone before my participation to this project, has added "make SELinux work on live system" to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Schedule
I think there was something wrong with SELinux on Live CDs.
Does it now? I haven't yet look deeply at it.
I believe that was a general statement, as in some aspects of SELinux may not work in readonly-root environment.
Ermm, no. SELinux is perfectly fine with a read-only environment.
I can predispose they didn't mean just "label files as is stock in Fedora Core". Which would be fixed when RPM knows how to distribute files with contexts in it's payload. I too should look more into this as I haven't yet built any with SELinux enabled.
And RPM has been setting file contexts since FC2.
The problem is that the various compressed filesystems don't actually support xattrs which is required for setting up the SELinux file contexts.
Jeremy
Jeremy Katz wrote:
The problem is that the various compressed filesystems don't actually support xattrs which is required for setting up the SELinux file contexts.
Jeremy
Ok. In this case, there isn't much anyone can do but send patches to the upstream maintenance and wait. That or patch Fedora Core tools to support these, and send upstream also. As I stated I could predispose the "just setting contexts" wasn't the issue, since this can be done before hand and (now that you've mentioned it) since RPM already knows about contexts, this couldn't be the issue. (Contexts can't be changed on a read-only file, is what I was basing my understanding of that item on.)
Just for reference, I will edit the Kadischi wiki to make this item clearer. It is there for a reminder I'd imagine, but it can be clear. Thanks.
J. Hartline
--- Jeremy Katz katzj@redhat.com wrote:
The problem is that the various compressed filesystems don't actually support xattrs which is required for setting up the SELinux file contexts.
If I were intent on using SELinux, I would ask this question-
once you get kadischi to have a specifiable read-only filesystem type (i.e. zisofs or squashfs or ...), would there be any problem with doing a (possibly clooped) ext2(/3) fs as an option.
Definately it'd be less efficient spacewise than squashfs, but it shouldn't really be too hard to add that as an option, which sounds like it might enable SELinux.
Though how about tmpfs? Does it support xattrs? Currently kad uses bind-mounting and read-only root for a mix of tmpfs+zisofs. So if you switch zisofs to cloop-ext2, you still have the tmpfs part.
I wonder how selinux would cope with tmpfs+cloop_ext2+relayfs (or relayfs in general).
time and experiment will tell I suppose.
-jdog
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 11:05 -0800, Jane Dogalt wrote:
--- Jeremy Katz katzj@redhat.com wrote:
The problem is that the various compressed filesystems don't actually support xattrs which is required for setting up the SELinux file contexts.
If I were intent on using SELinux, I would ask this question-
once you get kadischi to have a specifiable read-only filesystem type (i.e. zisofs or squashfs or ...), would there be any problem with doing a (possibly clooped) ext2(/3) fs as an option.
I vaguely have a memory of raw ext[23] on an iso not working for some reason. But it's a hazy memory from long ago. You're welcome to check. If it does, that's one option. Although adding xattr support for a filesystem _isn't_ that difficult.
Though how about tmpfs? Does it support xattrs?
tmpfs supports xattrs -- that support was added when we went to using udev with tmpfs for /dev
Jeremy
From now on there are some texts concerning Legal issues and Kadischi:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal
Chitlesh GOORAH -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com
--- Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Does the full spectrum of removing the artwork/trademarks that is
associated
with creating a fedora derivative distribution apply?
Good point indeed!
I think we need something like this http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ChitleshGoorah/legal
Please have a look and review it, Ive asked nman on irc and greg too
I still think the answer is fuzzy. It seems there are 2 issues I see-
1) "distributing something under the name Fedora"
and
2) "distributing something under another name, but without removing every trace of fedora art/trademarks, i.e. the default behaviour of kadischi"
(and 3) "distributing something under another name, and removing every trace of fedora art/trademarks".
Clearly #3 is acceptable. Clearly #1 is unacceptable. The wiki, and some answers so far suggest that #2 is acceptable, but I would like that to be made explicitly clear if so. Because if it is unacceptable, then until #3 becomes easy to do (post install script included in kadischi package), then kadischi has a somewhat more limited usefulness to I think a healthy fraction of it's current target users. For example, if unacceptable, the LWN author would not be allowed to post his iso online (though presumably s/he could post a short script and/or instructions for how to produce a theoretically identical iso)
-jdog
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
livecd@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Chitlesh GOORAH -
J. Hartline -
Jane Dogalt -
Jeremy Katz -
Patrick W. Barnes