-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I posted this on http//www.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=86543 and at Rahul Sundaram's suggestion/request I'm posting this here also. The verbatim copy of the posted test follows:
- ---- Begin Original Text ----
A friend of mine for whom I built a system, recently approached me and asked me why didn't I started selling Linux based PCs... My primary field of work is not system building or integration, but what moved the most was what he said regarding the predominant position or a certain company from north-western US, and I'm like (sarcastic) "Yeah, let's sell Wallmart's $300 USD PCs! Jeeze!" That started a discution which turned into a plausible plan to kickstart (or at least try to, anyway) a company, however I have some questions. Anyway I'm affraid I may end up sending a couple e-mails to the lawyers in Red Hat to better grasp this.
Well the plan is simply that: Build and put together Linux PCs and then sell them. That's the basic idea. Now I've got some questions:
*) How far could we (if we walk down this path, anyway) modify the default Fedora installation to better fit customers? (installing some Extras packages and maybe Flash/RealPlayer/mPlayer/Xine; 32-bit apps for backwards compatibility on 64-bit Linux boxes)
*) As far as Look'n'Feel go, would there be problems if the default desktop settings are changed a bit (theme, icon set, color schemes)?
*) Even though Fedora does not ship with them, could we be able to deliver the built systems with all necesary drivers, provided a warning in the manual that stated the drivers are not part of the distro DVD the customers will get, with instructions on how to get them and install them?
*) The cost of the systems would be based only on the price for the hardware, being the software totally free, and possibly a small fee for support (for instance 30 bucks for 6 months of extended support and installation help). We've not completely outlined the systems we'd be offering, but they'd all be x86_64 based (and we yet have to decide whether to install 64-bit versions or 32-bit of the OS).
I know we could be using other distributions which would allow us to have the systems installed that way, but we'd like to stay with Fedora (since we both use Fedora and like it above other distros). We are aware of the legal issues surrounding applications, especially multimedia apps, I'm more worried about hardware dirvers and the like, though. We are also pondering (if the multimedia apps is such a pitfall) to only provide in the documentation instructions on how to install such programs, but probably we would like to know also if there would be any problems by having other repositories (like Livna) configured in the systems.
I appreciate your comments and I'm very excited about this project. Maybe we could manage to at least place Linux a bit higher down here in Mex. Though we are thinking on offering pretty much higher-end systems and probably Workstations.
- ---- End of Original Text ----
I know that this may bring some legal issues. But first I feel compelled to carify some of what I wrote up there. First and foremost, the only modifications planned to the "default" installation would be regarding theme and icons, however not modifying the Red Hat/Fedora logo for the menu entries (it'd be a custom icon-theme that we plan on releasing on art-gnome.org, gnome-look.org and if we manage to make one, an RPM for Extras). No other logos/trademarks would be removed from the installation.
In the event there would be a problem by providing any of the other packages (Flash/RealPlayer/etc), how about providing only selected programs from Extras? Or would the users be required to get the Extras programs they want from Extras, leaving only a default install of Core? As I said above, I'm especially worried about device drivers. At the moment I'm going through all the material there's at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal, just wanted to post this earlier (while I still read) so you guys cand advise. Thanks.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 02:11:23PM -0600, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
*) How far could we (if we walk down this path, anyway) modify the default Fedora installation to better fit customers? (installing some Extras packages and maybe Flash/RealPlayer/mPlayer/Xine; 32-bit apps for backwards compatibility on 64-bit Linux boxes)
If you modify it, you can't call it Fedora. But you can modify it all you want. However, as not-a-lawyer, just adding things probably doesn't fall under that. The details hare here: http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/
You're definitely going to want to consult a lawyer. Preferably one familiar with open source.
Watch out for the licenses and other legal issues with those "maybe" apps.
And x86_64 already does include 32-bit backwards-compatibility stuff.
*) As far as Look'n'Feel go, would there be problems if the default desktop settings are changed a bit (theme, icon set, color schemes)?
Same.
*) Even though Fedora does not ship with them, could we be able to deliver the built systems with all necesary drivers, provided a warning in the manual that stated the drivers are not part of the distro DVD the customers will get, with instructions on how to get them and install them?
The trademark guidelines would apply again. But also, it would depend on the licensing terms of the drivers, too.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 02:11:23PM -0600, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
*) How far could we (if we walk down this path, anyway) modify the default Fedora installation to better fit customers? (installing some Extras packages and maybe Flash/RealPlayer/mPlayer/Xine; 32-bit apps for backwards compatibility on 64-bit Linux boxes)
If you modify it, you can't call it Fedora. But you can modify it all you want. However, as not-a-lawyer, just adding things probably doesn't fall under that. The details hare here: http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/
You're definitely going to want to consult a lawyer. Preferably one familiar with open source.
Watch out for the licenses and other legal issues with those "maybe" apps.
And x86_64 already does include 32-bit backwards-compatibility stuff.
Yes it does, just not for plugins stuff like Flash, Java and even RealPlayer. I had to install either Firefox/Netscape/Mozilla 32-bit to be able to install Flash. Plus when I installed FC4 x86_64 I had to expressely state I wanted the 32-bit compatibility libs and programs.
*) As far as Look'n'Feel go, would there be problems if the default desktop settings are changed a bit (theme, icon set, color schemes)?
Same.
*) Even though Fedora does not ship with them, could we be able to deliver the built systems with all necesary drivers, provided a warning in the manual that stated the drivers are not part of the distro DVD the customers will get, with instructions on how to get them and install them?
The trademark guidelines would apply again. But also, it would depend on the licensing terms of the drivers, too.
Guess, Fedora is best suited for individual use only... As going through all the restrictions, and balancing what most users expect to find in their comptuers, it'd deffinitely be hard to market such computers. Despite the computer's raw power. As I said earlier, what worries me the most is the hardware part, as I can leave the system to a default (kickstart) installation, letting users configure their users, change root's password, etc., but (and I would too) users expect the hardware they buy a new system with to flawlessly work with the OS the system shipped. This is what leaves me worried. As these are the rough specs we thought of the systems:
Proc AMD64 based (2800+ onwards) Mem 1Gb (PC 333 or 400 depending on price) HDD 160 S-ATA HDD (with at least 6 partitions, 5 for system, 1 for storage) DVD-RW/RAM optic unit CD-RW 52-32-52 optic unit Graphics: 1) nVidia based graphics solutions <- This right here is an issue in itself! Though they've got the best support and best performing drivers around. 2) S3 based graphics, using OpenSource Drivers. Best suited for Desktop system, with limited garphics use (i.e, not for gaming or the like) Sound: EMU10K1 Audigy2 Value class cards or VIA 8235/8237 class cards (as these two types have native ALSA hardware mixing capabilities) The rest of the hardware is pretty much standard (USB keyboard, mice and 17" LCD monitor)
Of the above (assuming no changes to Fedora installation), obviously the hardware is an issue. We want to offer some lean 'n mean hardware, but without the drivers to operate it... I guess they won't go too far. We've thought of a few ways to walk around this issue, like if we just leave Fedora be and go for another distro (we wouldn't want to do that, though) or offer the drivers as a separate disk with installation instructions, and probably those packages we would have had added to the system... BUT this could also in itself be an issue if in anyway there's a restriction to do this as well. I'm going through the licenses of Flash, RealPlayer and the nVidia (and ATi) drivers as well... I didn't expect this to be easy...
Just to clarify: Even changing default theme (to another GPL'ed one) would cause an issue with the trademark? Even if the theme COMES with Fedora in a default installation?
PS: I really wouldn't want to relegate Fedora systems to "compatibility-value" boxes, as I know how good the system can really be.
Hi
Guess, Fedora is best suited for individual use only... As going through all the restrictions, and balancing what most users expect to find in their comptuers, it'd deffinitely be hard to market such computers. Despite the computer's raw power. As I said earlier, what worries me the most is the hardware part, as I can leave the system to a default (kickstart) installation, letting users configure their users, change root's password, etc., but (and I would too) users expect the hardware they buy a new system with to flawlessly work with the OS the system shipped. This is what leaves me worried. As these are the rough specs we thought of the systems:
Like you have mentioned Kickstart has all sort of hooks for OEM to use so the infrastructure to do more than individual deployments is certainly there along with GFS, Xen and so on. Jesse Keating did a presentation on Fedora for OEM distributions in FUDCon1 which you might want to read http://fedoraproject.org/fudcon/FUDCon1/
We've thought of a few ways to walk around this issue, like if we just leave Fedora be and go for another distro (we wouldn't want to do that, though) or offer the drivers as a separate disk with installation instructions, and probably those packages we would have had added to the system... BUT this could also in itself be an issue if in anyway there's a restriction to do this as well. I'm going through the licenses of Flash, RealPlayer and the nVidia (and ATi) drivers as well... I didn't expect this to be easy...
I cannot offer legal advise but here are some of my personal opinions. Regardless of any distribution you use, you would have similar trademark guidelines in place to prevent confusion. As long as you dont modify Fedora in anyway and simple redistribute it with the additional packages clearly indicated as such the trademark guidelines should not affect you. Do a license audit of the add on packages and if the licenses allow redistribution without a EULA (Interactive installations is against the design goals of RPM) you can integrate them within a repository and have a post installation hook to pull in packages from a OEM repository or design a custom application say in GTK+ that has a druid or even a simple shell script and zenity (part of GNOME-utils) with fallbacks. The application would have the EULAs which the user can agree to before getting the necessary packages which can be launched on first login for the system administrator/user. As long as you make it clear that this application and whatever packages it uses is not part of Fedora this seems to be a clean solution to me.
Just to clarify: Even changing default theme (to another GPL'ed one) would cause an issue with the trademark? Even if the theme COMES with Fedora in a default installation?
All of the Free and open source software licenses allow you to copy, modify and redistribute software licensed under them. Thats however orthogonal to the trademark guidelines.
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/007may05/
Legal like security is a field where it pays to be paranoidal. So we have to assume worst case scenarios. If suppose the trademark protection guidelines allow the OEM to change the theme and if they switch the distribution to use one of the al1y GPL'ed theme included in Fedora as the default, that would be aesthetically non appealing even while serving the functionality it is designed for, leaving users of this modified distribution leaving a bad impression on what Fedora is. So thats potentially a scenario that the guidelines are meant to avoid. The alternative would be to get special exceptions which is a hassle.
I would like to hear your plans with more details. How many systems are you planning to redistribute Fedora?, market segment, timeframe etc.
regards Rahul
I really appreciate your comments guys, even though I may sound like a stubborn nonsensical guy at times, I'm trying my best to get this right.
Thus far I've gone through the nVidia and Flash licenses, they allow redistribution as long as the binary part of the packages is not changed (in the case of Flash, that's the package in itself and in the case of nVidia's driver, that's the X aspect of the package, as the kernel-side portion may require patches to get it built). In any case, both allow redistribution. I took a look at how other vendors are putting systems together, in particular HP workstations with some or another flavor of RHEL installed. We're not planning going with RHEL for a number or reasons (and thats not necesarily related to support subscriptions, more on that bellow). What I learned of how HP distributes their Workstations is by asking their users to log into their website to finish configuration of the Workstation (most likely to allow for third party software to be installed and properly acknowledge the users). So that there could be sort of a solution to our problem (details on this project and projected scope, etc, in a bit). Many of the extra packages we want to include are actually part of Fedora Extras, but that got out of Core (for some obvious and some not so obvious reasons), but which we consider could be considered as pluses, especially for our targetted audiences.
The most spikey issue is of course that of Multimedia (as I have mentioned before), as people currenly expect to be able to have some sort of multimedia capabilities... Still while not directly providing the packages, would proper documentation on how to install them, plus disclaimers that if the user so chooses to install, say a DVD player, even though the validity of libdvdcss in Linux is doubtious (at the very least), the Fedora Foundation, the Fedora Project and ourselves (system builders) cannot be held responsible for the use given to such applications and tools, are not liable to responsibility from legal issues of any kind derived from the use there of? Sorry if my question is a bit confusing, but what I mean is that if we warn the users, even though providing the info on how to install such applications, but not directly providing the applications per se, and stating that any problems derived from the use of such apps, is the sole responsibility of the user and the user alone, would that still be a violation to the guidelines of Fedora Foundation and trademark use?
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Guess, Fedora is best suited for individual use only... As going through all the restrictions, and balancing what most users expect to find in their comptuers, it'd deffinitely be hard to market such computers. Despite the computer's raw power. As I said earlier, what worries me the most is the hardware part, as I can leave the system to a default (kickstart) installation, letting users configure their users, change root's password, etc., but (and I would too) users expect the hardware they buy a new system with to flawlessly work with the OS the system shipped. This is what leaves me worried. As these are the rough specs we thought of the systems:
Like you have mentioned Kickstart has all sort of hooks for OEM to use so the infrastructure to do more than individual deployments is certainly there along with GFS, Xen and so on. Jesse Keating did a presentation on Fedora for OEM distributions in FUDCon1 which you might want to read http://fedoraproject.org/fudcon/FUDCon1/
Thanks a lot, Rahul. I'll certainly take a look at it! Certainly Kickstart would be the way to go, plus taking advantage of the capability of Anaconda to install extra disks from the first boot interface. Whether the user decides or not to use the "extras" disk, would be up to him/her, and as such the Fedora intallation would be safeguarded that way, because up until that point, the installation will be a pristine Fedora default.
We've thought of a few ways to walk around this issue, like if we just leave Fedora be and go for another distro (we wouldn't want to do that, though) or offer the drivers as a separate disk with installation instructions, and probably those packages we would have had added to the system... BUT this could also in itself be an issue if in anyway there's a restriction to do this as well. I'm going through the licenses of Flash, RealPlayer and the nVidia (and ATi) drivers as well... I didn't expect this to be easy...
I cannot offer legal advise but here are some of my personal opinions. Regardless of any distribution you use, you would have similar trademark guidelines in place to prevent confusion. As long as you dont modify Fedora in anyway and simple redistribute it with the additional packages clearly indicated as such the trademark guidelines should not affect you. Do a license audit of the add on packages and if the licenses allow redistribution without a EULA (Interactive installations is against the design goals of RPM) you can integrate them within a repository and have a post installation hook to pull in packages from a OEM repository or design a custom application say in GTK+ that has a druid or even a simple shell script and zenity (part of GNOME-utils) with fallbacks. The application would have the EULAs which the user can agree to before getting the necessary packages which can be launched on first login for the system administrator/user. As long as you make it clear that this application and whatever packages it uses is not part of Fedora this seems to be a clean solution to me.
Well, just to round up a bit more what I said earlier. When looking at how HP configures their Workstations, a similar idea could be done here. Either require the user to visit certain webiste to gather additional information on how to set up their systems, or tell them up front in the documentation with a very visible, nice looking, EASY TO FOLLOW(1) installation guide and first steps with the new system, so that they understand that up to that point during first boot system setup, the system is a clean Fedora default installation, and what follows is our post-configuration to get all the additional programs and device drivers in place for intended system use (as advertised by us). The tricky part will be to have good Fedora advertising and still provide some extra functionality that will (hopefully) make users buy more systems from us. This blance between our intention to be true to Fedora, and yet have some value added to systems built by us, will be the REAL challenge. Especially to avoid striding too much away from a Fedora's default installation.
Just to clarify: Even changing default theme (to another GPL'ed one) would cause an issue with the trademark? Even if the theme COMES with Fedora in a default installation?
All of the Free and open source software licenses allow you to copy, modify and redistribute software licensed under them. Thats however orthogonal to the trademark guidelines.
I'll take a look at that issue of Red Hat Mag. Anyway, I believe that the easiest way will be to have default settings an leave the users decide what they want... We like the clearlooks olive theme better... (though I have to admit I like it a lot too when combined clearlooks window border with Bluecurve Strawberry or Orange GTK colors)
Legal like security is a field where it pays to be paranoidal. So we have to assume worst case scenarios. If suppose the trademark protection guidelines allow the OEM to change the theme and if they switch the distribution to use one of the al1y GPL'ed theme included in Fedora as the default, that would be aesthetically non appealing even while serving the functionality it is designed for, leaving users of this modified distribution leaving a bad impression on what Fedora is. So thats potentially a scenario that the guidelines are meant to avoid. The alternative would be to get special exceptions which is a hassle.
Yes, and because I know that is taht I'm trying to figure out what would be the best way to balance user requests with what can be provided with our systems, and having this wonderful distribution as the core of it all
I would like to hear your plans with more details. How many systems are you planning to redistribute Fedora?, market segment, timeframe etc.
regards Rahul
The whole plan for the Fedora based computers is like this:
It all started when one of my best friends asked me to insall Linux on his PC and he became immediately hooked, switched in a matter of days...
According to what we have gathered thus far, there is a potential market in Mexico, quite big. Since we are a poor nation, and given the fact that usually computer hardware down here runs for at least twice as much as in the US, a cheapper alternative is needed. Not only that, but the systems sold by some of the big names in the industry can run for several thousand dollars for a top of the line system, while a mid-range system can still be quite pricey, we're talking that a Windows Media Center computer by HP can easily run for as much as $3500 USD. Mid-range and entry-level PCs while cheapper, usually lack a lot in the hardware department and even when they may have powerful components like processors and the like, usually the system is lacking in memory (like a P4 2.8 GHz with 256 Mb RAM with Windows XP on it) and are usually quite bloated in the software department (especially start up programs).
So we started to think of ways to get better hardware at lower prices, and since we both use Linux we thought that it could only be natural to use Linux. But we've also identified some necessities from the users with whom we have most contact, like the need for really simple and to the point applications (we know Linux distros usually have plenty of those), easy enough to use interface and updates system (who can beat yum, anyway?!), etc. However, there is an increasing necessity for multimedia compliance, and here are the spikes. Because during the second half of the nineties, when multimedia systems bloomed, also bloomed the mp3 audio format, and very quickly the people started to compress all their CD libraries into their computers usin mp3... And when the world learnt that the format was not free and a license was required, that ruled out many Linux systems. At any rate, a lot of people has asked us if they'd be able to transfer their existin library into Linux, hence the need for a media player capable of playing mp3 (and for some, wma, too).
The DVD issue is not as a big deal as the mp3 thing is, becuase a lot of people simply have a home DVD to watch their movies on, so they don't actually care about a DVD player, but they DO care about web and streaming video content... Another problem as the most widely used formats aren't free either, Microsoft's Windows Media Video and AVIs are quite common place on websites, not to mention other proprietary formats like Real Video and QuickTime. Was because of these "needs" that we decided that maybe including a media player like mplyaer, VLC or Xine could be a good idea, but when looked from above, it actually doesn't... Even though simply not providing a means to play this content could be a nay-say for many users.
Another issue we found that users were constatntly telling us, has got to do with security, virii and all those exploits of which Windows has been subject of as of late. Fortunately Linux is inherently safer than Windows, anyway, the real reason for that is that with all the spyware that some Windows computers mange to get, the performance of a computer starts to deteriorate to ridiculous point, so people have actualy asked us about "durability" of a Linux system, said another way "How much time until it start crawling instead of running". We believe Linux can help us there too.
So having this in mind and the fact that especially computer enthusiastic users have approached us becuase we are asidous Linux users, made us believe that we could sell what is still considered to be a higher-end system for quite a reasonable price, with support and a Free operating system installed.
So initially we'll try to sell the systems to computer savvy users, but the ultimate goal is to try and address as much as we can the needs of those "less literate" users. Having the hardware and the software in place is not all there is to it. Just like Apple did in late nineties, we believe that Linux should be sold "in style". That's why we set the hardware standards for our intended systems a bit too high and yet affordable. The sum of the parts of the hardware for a system like the one of my last post (and dpending on the graphics card the system has) can run for as much as $1200 USD (sacrificing in the graphics dept., with say a GeForce 6600 plain). Still a very imprssive system, yet quite affordable, as 1200 bucks is usually what an entry-level (with mid-range specs) costs. Of course there are systems for as low as 500 dollars, but they're too tight in hardware. The intention is to make the systems last (in the hardware dept., at least) for some at least 5 years.
For us profits would be in support and hardware sells... If we get a critical mass big enough, should be enough for the business to maintain itself.
However (and I did read about this in the guidelines), we'd have to figure out an advetisement campaing that not only puts Fedora on the radar of buyers, but also would not be in contraposition with said guidelines to not be misleading and stuff... and being this especially true if promoted as a gaming rig (for instance) with the waves of comercial games that have announced Linux support and all, as fundamental hardware support (in this case graphics) is not part of the distribution. Other market segment we'll try to get into is the small to medium office desktop, as we've had some possitive feedback in this regard. Corporate scale is not part of our scope, at least not yet. And for these systems, while still keeping much of the fancyness of the hardware, we've agreed not to soup up the graphics hardware, as such embedded Chrome chips are ideal in this scenario, as they even have kernel-level DRM drivers nowadays, so even graphics 3D accelartion is possible (if not as fast and fancy as with the "higher"-end systems we are planning.
As I said before, multimedia is a quite a big deal, even in an office environment, where the users may have setup a VoIP prgram, and they'd still want to be able to listen to their radio stations or music libraries, that's why we've also payed special attention to audio hardware, and deal with that which we know will be able to offer customers that without worrying about if they could dmix Skype or TeamSpeak while they're listeningto music, playing their games, watching videos or whatever. Right now we have very narrow options for this hardware mixing requirement (as I said my previous e-mail), and though there are more options, we've been unable to find (here) hardware based on other chips which are known to have good ALSA hardware mixing support (like Trident's 4D Wave, besides the ones mentioned)
So pretty much these are as many details as we have right now... We are working our hearts out to research more about this legal mumbo-jumbo. We plan on developing these plans in the upcoming 6 months. The goal is to try and see how many systems are we able to get people interested on... I just hope we could find a balance between "cool" factor and legal compliance.
So I guess that during the next 6 months our milestone will be set at approximately 1000 systems (conservative figures, I know).
(1) I've actually seen people render simple things into quite complicated matters.
As the usage guidelines stand *right now*, you *cannot* use the Fedora name if you alter the bits *in any way*.
This has been the policy since Fedora was first created -- largely because no one had the time to deal with questions like the ones you're raising right now.
I'm trying to push for a "based on Fedora" policy, which would allow resellers/LUGs/whomever to get some value from the Fedora name without exposing Fedora to liability. But there's no policy of this kind in place yet, and it involves hand-to-hand combat with lawyers, so I make no promises about this policy appearing any time soon.
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
I really appreciate your comments guys, even though I may sound like a stubborn nonsensical guy at times, I'm trying my best to get this right.
Thus far I've gone through the nVidia and Flash licenses, they allow redistribution as long as the binary part of the packages is not changed (in the case of Flash, that's the package in itself and in the case of nVidia's driver, that's the X aspect of the package, as the kernel-side portion may require patches to get it built). In any case, both allow redistribution. I took a look at how other vendors are putting systems together, in particular HP workstations with some or another flavor of RHEL installed. We're not planning going with RHEL for a number or reasons (and thats not necesarily related to support subscriptions, more on that bellow). What I learned of how HP distributes their Workstations is by asking their users to log into their website to finish configuration of the Workstation (most likely to allow for third party software to be installed and properly acknowledge the users). So that there could be sort of a solution to our problem (details on this project and projected scope, etc, in a bit). Many of the extra packages we want to include are actually part of Fedora Extras, but that got out of Core (for some obvious and some not so obvious reasons), but which we consider could be considered as pluses, especially for our targetted audiences.
The most spikey issue is of course that of Multimedia (as I have mentioned before), as people currenly expect to be able to have some sort of multimedia capabilities... Still while not directly providing the packages, would proper documentation on how to install them, plus disclaimers that if the user so chooses to install, say a DVD player, even though the validity of libdvdcss in Linux is doubtious (at the very least), the Fedora Foundation, the Fedora Project and ourselves (system builders) cannot be held responsible for the use given to such applications and tools, are not liable to responsibility from legal issues of any kind derived from the use there of? Sorry if my question is a bit confusing, but what I mean is that if we warn the users, even though providing the info on how to install such applications, but not directly providing the applications per se, and stating that any problems derived from the use of such apps, is the sole responsibility of the user and the user alone, would that still be a violation to the guidelines of Fedora Foundation and trademark use?
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Guess, Fedora is best suited for individual use only... As going through all the restrictions, and balancing what most users expect to find in their comptuers, it'd deffinitely be hard to market such computers. Despite the computer's raw power. As I said earlier, what worries me the most is the hardware part, as I can leave the system to a default (kickstart) installation, letting users configure their users, change root's password, etc., but (and I would too) users expect the hardware they buy a new system with to flawlessly work with the OS the system shipped. This is what leaves me worried. As these are the rough specs we thought of the systems:
Like you have mentioned Kickstart has all sort of hooks for OEM to use so the infrastructure to do more than individual deployments is certainly there along with GFS, Xen and so on. Jesse Keating did a presentation on Fedora for OEM distributions in FUDCon1 which you might want to read http://fedoraproject.org/fudcon/FUDCon1/
Thanks a lot, Rahul. I'll certainly take a look at it! Certainly Kickstart would be the way to go, plus taking advantage of the capability of Anaconda to install extra disks from the first boot interface. Whether the user decides or not to use the "extras" disk, would be up to him/her, and as such the Fedora intallation would be safeguarded that way, because up until that point, the installation will be a pristine Fedora default.
We've thought of a few ways to walk around this issue, like if we just leave Fedora be and go for another distro (we wouldn't want to do that, though) or offer the drivers as a separate disk with installation instructions, and probably those packages we would have had added to the system... BUT this could also in itself be an issue if in anyway there's a restriction to do this as well. I'm going through the licenses of Flash, RealPlayer and the nVidia (and ATi) drivers as well... I didn't expect this to be easy...
I cannot offer legal advise but here are some of my personal opinions. Regardless of any distribution you use, you would have similar trademark guidelines in place to prevent confusion. As long as you dont modify Fedora in anyway and simple redistribute it with the additional packages clearly indicated as such the trademark guidelines should not affect you. Do a license audit of the add on packages and if the licenses allow redistribution without a EULA (Interactive installations is against the design goals of RPM) you can integrate them within a repository and have a post installation hook to pull in packages from a OEM repository or design a custom application say in GTK+ that has a druid or even a simple shell script and zenity (part of GNOME-utils) with fallbacks. The application would have the EULAs which the user can agree to before getting the necessary packages which can be launched on first login for the system administrator/user. As long as you make it clear that this application and whatever packages it uses is not part of Fedora this seems to be a clean solution to me.
Well, just to round up a bit more what I said earlier. When looking at how HP configures their Workstations, a similar idea could be done here. Either require the user to visit certain webiste to gather additional information on how to set up their systems, or tell them up front in the documentation with a very visible, nice looking, EASY TO FOLLOW(1) installation guide and first steps with the new system, so that they understand that up to that point during first boot system setup, the system is a clean Fedora default installation, and what follows is our post-configuration to get all the additional programs and device drivers in place for intended system use (as advertised by us). The tricky part will be to have good Fedora advertising and still provide some extra functionality that will (hopefully) make users buy more systems from us. This blance between our intention to be true to Fedora, and yet have some value added to systems built by us, will be the REAL challenge. Especially to avoid striding too much away from a Fedora's default installation.
Just to clarify: Even changing default theme (to another GPL'ed one) would cause an issue with the trademark? Even if the theme COMES with Fedora in a default installation?
All of the Free and open source software licenses allow you to copy, modify and redistribute software licensed under them. Thats however orthogonal to the trademark guidelines.
I'll take a look at that issue of Red Hat Mag. Anyway, I believe that the easiest way will be to have default settings an leave the users decide what they want... We like the clearlooks olive theme better... (though I have to admit I like it a lot too when combined clearlooks window border with Bluecurve Strawberry or Orange GTK colors)
Legal like security is a field where it pays to be paranoidal. So we have to assume worst case scenarios. If suppose the trademark protection guidelines allow the OEM to change the theme and if they switch the distribution to use one of the al1y GPL'ed theme included in Fedora as the default, that would be aesthetically non appealing even while serving the functionality it is designed for, leaving users of this modified distribution leaving a bad impression on what Fedora is. So thats potentially a scenario that the guidelines are meant to avoid. The alternative would be to get special exceptions which is a hassle.
Yes, and because I know that is taht I'm trying to figure out what would be the best way to balance user requests with what can be provided with our systems, and having this wonderful distribution as the core of it all
I would like to hear your plans with more details. How many systems are you planning to redistribute Fedora?, market segment, timeframe etc.
regards Rahul
The whole plan for the Fedora based computers is like this:
It all started when one of my best friends asked me to insall Linux on his PC and he became immediately hooked, switched in a matter of days...
According to what we have gathered thus far, there is a potential market in Mexico, quite big. Since we are a poor nation, and given the fact that usually computer hardware down here runs for at least twice as much as in the US, a cheapper alternative is needed. Not only that, but the systems sold by some of the big names in the industry can run for several thousand dollars for a top of the line system, while a mid-range system can still be quite pricey, we're talking that a Windows Media Center computer by HP can easily run for as much as $3500 USD. Mid-range and entry-level PCs while cheapper, usually lack a lot in the hardware department and even when they may have powerful components like processors and the like, usually the system is lacking in memory (like a P4 2.8 GHz with 256 Mb RAM with Windows XP on it) and are usually quite bloated in the software department (especially start up programs).
So we started to think of ways to get better hardware at lower prices, and since we both use Linux we thought that it could only be natural to use Linux. But we've also identified some necessities from the users with whom we have most contact, like the need for really simple and to the point applications (we know Linux distros usually have plenty of those), easy enough to use interface and updates system (who can beat yum, anyway?!), etc. However, there is an increasing necessity for multimedia compliance, and here are the spikes. Because during the second half of the nineties, when multimedia systems bloomed, also bloomed the mp3 audio format, and very quickly the people started to compress all their CD libraries into their computers usin mp3... And when the world learnt that the format was not free and a license was required, that ruled out many Linux systems. At any rate, a lot of people has asked us if they'd be able to transfer their existin library into Linux, hence the need for a media player capable of playing mp3 (and for some, wma, too).
The DVD issue is not as a big deal as the mp3 thing is, becuase a lot of people simply have a home DVD to watch their movies on, so they don't actually care about a DVD player, but they DO care about web and streaming video content... Another problem as the most widely used formats aren't free either, Microsoft's Windows Media Video and AVIs are quite common place on websites, not to mention other proprietary formats like Real Video and QuickTime. Was because of these "needs" that we decided that maybe including a media player like mplyaer, VLC or Xine could be a good idea, but when looked from above, it actually doesn't... Even though simply not providing a means to play this content could be a nay-say for many users.
Another issue we found that users were constatntly telling us, has got to do with security, virii and all those exploits of which Windows has been subject of as of late. Fortunately Linux is inherently safer than Windows, anyway, the real reason for that is that with all the spyware that some Windows computers mange to get, the performance of a computer starts to deteriorate to ridiculous point, so people have actualy asked us about "durability" of a Linux system, said another way "How much time until it start crawling instead of running". We believe Linux can help us there too.
So having this in mind and the fact that especially computer enthusiastic users have approached us becuase we are asidous Linux users, made us believe that we could sell what is still considered to be a higher-end system for quite a reasonable price, with support and a Free operating system installed.
So initially we'll try to sell the systems to computer savvy users, but the ultimate goal is to try and address as much as we can the needs of those "less literate" users. Having the hardware and the software in place is not all there is to it. Just like Apple did in late nineties, we believe that Linux should be sold "in style". That's why we set the hardware standards for our intended systems a bit too high and yet affordable. The sum of the parts of the hardware for a system like the one of my last post (and dpending on the graphics card the system has) can run for as much as $1200 USD (sacrificing in the graphics dept., with say a GeForce 6600 plain). Still a very imprssive system, yet quite affordable, as 1200 bucks is usually what an entry-level (with mid-range specs) costs. Of course there are systems for as low as 500 dollars, but they're too tight in hardware. The intention is to make the systems last (in the hardware dept., at least) for some at least 5 years.
For us profits would be in support and hardware sells... If we get a critical mass big enough, should be enough for the business to maintain itself.
However (and I did read about this in the guidelines), we'd have to figure out an advetisement campaing that not only puts Fedora on the radar of buyers, but also would not be in contraposition with said guidelines to not be misleading and stuff... and being this especially true if promoted as a gaming rig (for instance) with the waves of comercial games that have announced Linux support and all, as fundamental hardware support (in this case graphics) is not part of the distribution. Other market segment we'll try to get into is the small to medium office desktop, as we've had some possitive feedback in this regard. Corporate scale is not part of our scope, at least not yet. And for these systems, while still keeping much of the fancyness of the hardware, we've agreed not to soup up the graphics hardware, as such embedded Chrome chips are ideal in this scenario, as they even have kernel-level DRM drivers nowadays, so even graphics 3D accelartion is possible (if not as fast and fancy as with the "higher"-end systems we are planning.
As I said before, multimedia is a quite a big deal, even in an office environment, where the users may have setup a VoIP prgram, and they'd still want to be able to listen to their radio stations or music libraries, that's why we've also payed special attention to audio hardware, and deal with that which we know will be able to offer customers that without worrying about if they could dmix Skype or TeamSpeak while they're listeningto music, playing their games, watching videos or whatever. Right now we have very narrow options for this hardware mixing requirement (as I said my previous e-mail), and though there are more options, we've been unable to find (here) hardware based on other chips which are known to have good ALSA hardware mixing support (like Trident's 4D Wave, besides the ones mentioned)
So pretty much these are as many details as we have right now... We are working our hearts out to research more about this legal mumbo-jumbo. We plan on developing these plans in the upcoming 6 months. The goal is to try and see how many systems are we able to get people interested on... I just hope we could find a balance between "cool" factor and legal compliance.
So I guess that during the next 6 months our milestone will be set at approximately 1000 systems (conservative figures, I know).
(1) I've actually seen people render simple things into quite complicated matters.
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0500, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
As the usage guidelines stand *right now*, you *cannot* use the Fedora name if you alter the bits *in any way*. This has been the policy since Fedora was first created -- largely because no one had the time to deal with questions like the ones you're raising right now.
I think a common OEM case is: What if the CD included is stock Fedora, but the installed system has been modified? I know of several vendors which do this already, and are calling it "Fedora"....
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0500, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
As the usage guidelines stand *right now*, you *cannot* use the Fedora name if you alter the bits *in any way*. This has been the policy since Fedora was first created -- largely because no one had the time to deal with questions like the ones you're raising right now.
I think a common OEM case is: What if the CD included is stock Fedora, but the installed system has been modified? I know of several vendors which do this already, and are calling it "Fedora"....
Yep. And technically, according to the current guidelines, they are in violation. Which means that it's incumbent upon us to come up with a more reasonable policy as soon as possible.
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 11:10 -0500, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
Yep. And technically, according to the current guidelines, they are in violation. Which means that it's incumbent upon us to come up with a more reasonable policy as soon as possible.
Greg, I'd like to take this up with the Fedora Foundation. I've got that unique experience that I've worked for one of these OEM folks and I know what is reasonable on their end, and can work with the Foundation and Legal to come up with something that is reasonable for both ends.
As yet-another-workaround that is technically legal, you can offer all of your changes to Fedora as a separate service that can be conducted before dispatching the system. Basically, you sell the person the computer, give them Fedora for free, and bundle a free service of the modifications to Fedora. You would, of course, have to allow your customers to opt out of these changes, but it is a trivial way to work around the current guidelines. You could produce a CD and instructions to go along with the systems that allow the users to replicate the changes on their own, but you cannot apply these changes to the Fedora CDs you provide.
Note that this does not solve your legal concerns with regard to bundling third-party and patent-encumbered software. Those are issues you must address separately. Be sure to investigate the legal and liability ramifications in your locale of adding patent-encumbered software like MP3 and DVD support. It may be illegal for you to bundle these things just like it is for Red Hat to do so. I'm not familiar with Mexico's policies with regard to the United States' software and process patents.
Patrick Barnes wrote:
As yet-another-workaround that is technically legal, you can offer all of your changes to Fedora as a separate service that can be conducted before dispatching the system. Basically, you sell the person the computer, give them Fedora for free, and bundle a free service of the modifications to Fedora. You would, of course, have to allow your customers to opt out of these changes, but it is a trivial way to work around the current guidelines. You could produce a CD and instructions to go along with the systems that allow the users to replicate the changes on their own, but you cannot apply these changes to the Fedora CDs you provide.
Note that this does not solve your legal concerns with regard to bundling third-party and patent-encumbered software. Those are issues you must address separately. Be sure to investigate the legal and liability ramifications in your locale of adding patent-encumbered software like MP3 and DVD support. It may be illegal for you to bundle these things just like it is for Red Hat to do so. I'm not familiar with Mexico's policies with regard to the United States' software and process patents.
That was exactly what I meant, just by taking advantage of the "Install extra CDs" in Anaconda.
Down here it is pretty much the same as in the US. That's why I thought of RealPlayer and DVD support to be left as a per user option... or not inlcuded at all... Which might just be what we'll end up doing.
Sounds good to me. Jesse, I'll get with you and we'll work on a draft that we can present to counsel.
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 11:10 -0500, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
Yep. And technically, according to the current guidelines, they are in violation. Which means that it's incumbent upon us to come up with a more reasonable policy as soon as possible.
Greg, I'd like to take this up with the Fedora Foundation. I've got that unique experience that I've worked for one of these OEM folks and I know what is reasonable on their end, and can work with the Foundation and Legal to come up with something that is reasonable for both ends.
-- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
On 11/28/05, Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
I think a common OEM case is: What if the CD included is stock Fedora, but the installed system has been modified? I know of several vendors which do this already, and are calling it "Fedora"....
Or perhaps a stock install, with stock CDs in the box, and their own add-on disc which makes no mention of Fedora?
--jeremy
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 15:34 -0500, Jeremy Hogan wrote:
Or perhaps a stock install, with stock CDs in the box, and their own add-on disc which makes no mention of Fedora?
When I did this for Pogo Linux, I called the add-on disk(s) Pogo Linux Post-install CDs for Fedora Core. Had to identify that they CDs were for Fedora, rather than for CentOS or SUSE or something like that.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:59:18PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
Or perhaps a stock install, with stock CDs in the box, and their own add-on disc which makes no mention of Fedora?
When I did this for Pogo Linux, I called the add-on disk(s) Pogo Linux Post-install CDs for Fedora Core. Had to identify that they CDs were for Fedora, rather than for CentOS or SUSE or something like that.
And, lawyers or nay, you can totally do that, no matter what the trademark holder says, because it's functional, descriptive use.
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 16:03 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
And, lawyers or nay, you can totally do that, no matter what the trademark holder says, because it's functional, descriptive use.
Heh, thats what our lawyer told us (:
The question comes what can we get away with putting on the system _before_ it goes out the door, and still advertise that we are installing Fedora on it.
In the Red Hat Linux days, you couldn't even use Red Hat Linux or the logo unless each system came with a purchased box set of Red Hat Linux. Rather difficult to sell to a customer.
Since Fedora doesn't have boxed copies, this guideline obviously doesn't work. So I hope to work with the Fedora group and RH's lawyer to come up with a new reasonable guide line that can be used with Fedora.
On 11/28/05, Greg DeKoenigsberg gdk@redhat.com wrote:
I'm trying to push for a "based on Fedora" policy, which would allow resellers/LUGs/whomever to get some value from the Fedora name without exposing Fedora to liability. But there's no policy of this kind in place yet, and it involves hand-to-hand combat with lawyers, so I make no promises about this policy appearing any time soon.
Don't forget to equip your +3 charisma cursed briefcase before you go into battle
-jef"and remember you have to roll 16 or better on a 1d20 to hit with any 'common sense' spell"spaleta
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 01:50 -0500, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
Thanks a lot, Rahul. I'll certainly take a look at it! Certainly Kickstart would be the way to go, plus taking advantage of the capability of Anaconda to install extra disks from the first boot interface. Whether the user decides or not to use the "extras" disk, would be up to him/her, and as such the Fedora intallation would be safeguarded that way, because up until that point, the installation will be a pristine Fedora default.
You should also take a look at what current vendors are doing. Pogo Linux and Penguin Computing both sell systems pre-installed with Fedora. If I remember correctly (and I used to work for Pogo) both do modify the final install before it goes out the door. However I don't think any legal action has been taken against them as it isn't really done in a damaging to Fedora kind of way. That said, it isn't exactly legal, and I didn't like doing it.
What I wanted to do while at Pogo Linux, was to ship a system with Just Fedora and all updates installed, but with a Post-Install CD that users would run. This CD would "fix" a few things, install some custom and 3rd party packages, perhaps change some graphics defaults and stuff like that. Thus we are SHIPPING an unmodified Fedora, and the end user is given the choice to modify it or keep it stock. What we did instead was to pre-install all that stuff before it went out the door. I still developed a post-install CD set, one that also included all the updates at spin time. The buyer could do a Fedora re-install for whatever reason (happens a lot, they want their own partitioning scheme / package set) then user our Post-Install CD to do the updates and last mile customization.
I am not sure of the process that Penguin uses.
Hope this helps!
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 01:50 -0500, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
Thanks a lot, Rahul. I'll certainly take a look at it! Certainly Kickstart would be the way to go, plus taking advantage of the capability of Anaconda to install extra disks from the first boot interface. Whether the user decides or not to use the "extras" disk, would be up to him/her, and as such the Fedora intallation would be safeguarded that way, because up until that point, the installation will be a pristine Fedora default.
You should also take a look at what current vendors are doing. Pogo Linux and Penguin Computing both sell systems pre-installed with Fedora. If I remember correctly (and I used to work for Pogo) both do modify the final install before it goes out the door. However I don't think any legal action has been taken against them as it isn't really done in a damaging to Fedora kind of way. That said, it isn't exactly legal, and I didn't like doing it.
What I wanted to do while at Pogo Linux, was to ship a system with Just Fedora and all updates installed, but with a Post-Install CD that users would run. This CD would "fix" a few things, install some custom and 3rd party packages, perhaps change some graphics defaults and stuff like that. Thus we are SHIPPING an unmodified Fedora, and the end user is given the choice to modify it or keep it stock. What we did instead was to pre-install all that stuff before it went out the door. I still developed a post-install CD set, one that also included all the updates at spin time. The buyer could do a Fedora re-install for whatever reason (happens a lot, they want their own partitioning scheme / package set) then user our Post-Install CD to do the updates and last mile customization.
I am not sure of the process that Penguin uses.
Hope this helps!
This brings a question... If (for instance) avoiding the run of first boot (from a chrooted sysrescue session) the system is put up2date on a default install, would taht be considered modification? Most probably it would... I thought of the first boot post-install method as it seems to be the intended way for Fedora, only what would be the best way to ensable a disk to work in this way?
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:31 -0500, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
This brings a question... If (for instance) avoiding the run of first boot (from a chrooted sysrescue session) the system is put up2date on a default install, would taht be considered modification? Most probably it would... I thought of the first boot post-install method as it seems to be the intended way for Fedora, only what would be the best way to ensable a disk to work in this way?
Difficult to say. In fact what I made use of was init's .unconfigured plugin. If init finds a /.unconfigured file it will call some TUI tools such as setting the root password, configuring the auth method, setting what services start, etc... some of the things that are outside the scope of firstboot. Honestly you probably should have your clients do some of firstboot if not all of it. I'd like to get a policy in place that allows you to ship a system with all the updates installed and even some extra software so we can avoid some of the trouble of trying to do this last mile stuff at the customer location. Customers have a way of forgetting to do it or messing it up.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:31 -0500, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
This brings a question... If (for instance) avoiding the run of first boot (from a chrooted sysrescue session) the system is put up2date on a default install, would taht be considered modification? Most probably it would... I thought of the first boot post-install method as it seems to be the intended way for Fedora, only what would be the best way to ensable a disk to work in this way?
Difficult to say. In fact what I made use of was init's .unconfigured plugin. If init finds a /.unconfigured file it will call some TUI tools such as setting the root password, configuring the auth method, setting what services start, etc... some of the things that are outside the scope of firstboot. Honestly you probably should have your clients do some of firstboot if not all of it. I'd like to get a policy in place that allows you to ship a system with all the updates installed and even some extra software so we can avoid some of the trouble of trying to do this last mile stuff at the customer location. Customers have a way of forgetting to do it or messing it up.
Yes, this kinda brakes the "keep it simple" objective... In any case, from what I gather even delivering Fedora Extras packages can be considered non standard.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 07:47:00PM -0500, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
Yes, this kinda brakes the "keep it simple" objective... In any case, from what I gather even delivering Fedora Extras packages can be considered non standard.
If that's the case now, that *must* be changed in the clarified/additional rules being worked on.
Yeah. Clarifying the position of Fedora Extras is a clear goal.
I'd like to be able to say:
Any distribution of FC + any strict subset of Extras == official Fedora
Any distribution of FC + other stuff (maybe + signed agreement, depending) == based on Fedora
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 07:47:00PM -0500, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
Yes, this kinda brakes the "keep it simple" objective... In any case, from what I gather even delivering Fedora Extras packages can be considered non standard.
If that's the case now, that *must* be changed in the clarified/additional rules being worked on.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux ------> http://linux.bu.edu/
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
Yeah. Clarifying the position of Fedora Extras is a clear goal.
I'd like to be able to say:
Any distribution of FC + any strict subset of Extras == official Fedora
Any distribution of FC + other stuff (maybe + signed agreement, depending) == based on Fedora
--g
Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 07:47:00PM -0500, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
Yes, this kinda brakes the "keep it simple" objective... In any case, from what I gather even delivering Fedora Extras packages can be considered non standard.
If that's the case now, that *must* be changed in the clarified/additional rules being worked on.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux ------> http://linux.bu.edu/
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
That is what I've been trying to figure out... 'cause, from both the guidelines and the discussion here, it would seem that FE packages delivered *pre-installed* is a violation to the default Fedora installation, as these packages are not part of Core and, as such, not entirely delivered with the CD/DVD media the customer might receive... However, the repository configured inside the default install, could that be considered as equal as to receiving the installation media, as the install media for such packages *is* yum?
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:48 -0500, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
That is what I've been trying to figure out... 'cause, from both the guidelines and the discussion here, it would seem that FE packages delivered *pre-installed* is a violation to the default Fedora installation, as these packages are not part of Core and, as such, not entirely delivered with the CD/DVD media the customer might receive... However, the repository configured inside the default install, could that be considered as equal as to receiving the installation media, as the install media for such packages *is* yum?
This is one of the things I'll be considering when we draft the usage guideline. Until such time, there aren't any answers ):
Creating update cd's I saw a post on a forum with someone created updated cd's so that you pre-download lets say each week/month a list of updates then update the computer prior to it leaving?
I figure that the devs have enough on their plate than creating this sorta stuff but I would think something along those lines could be a possibility.
Regards,
Marc On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:37 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:31 -0500, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
This brings a question... If (for instance) avoiding the run of first boot (from a chrooted sysrescue session) the system is put up2date on a default install, would taht be considered modification? Most probably it would... I thought of the first boot post-install method as it seems to be the intended way for Fedora, only what would be the best way to ensable a disk to work in this way?
Difficult to say. In fact what I made use of was init's .unconfigured plugin. If init finds a /.unconfigured file it will call some TUI tools such as setting the root password, configuring the auth method, setting what services start, etc... some of the things that are outside the scope of firstboot. Honestly you probably should have your clients do some of firstboot if not all of it. I'd like to get a policy in place that allows you to ship a system with all the updates installed and even some extra software so we can avoid some of the trouble of trying to do this last mile stuff at the customer location. Customers have a way of forgetting to do it or messing it up.
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:47 +0800, Marc Wiriadisastra wrote:
Creating update cd's I saw a post on a forum with someone created updated cd's so that you pre-download lets say each week/month a list of updates then update the computer prior to it leaving?
I figure that the devs have enough on their plate than creating this sorta stuff but I would think something along those lines could be a possibility.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. When I was shipping Fedora pre-installs, I used kickstart for everything. Part of the kickstart's %post scripts was a call to yum to update against a local mirror that I synced each night. Since each system was built/install to order, the system would get updates as of the day before or a couple days before it ships to the customer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Didn't know whether to ask this in another thread or not, but here goes all the same.
Is there any updates to the guidelines for use by system builders to be able to ship Fedora systems with some Fedora Extras packages from the get go?
Also related, and I don't want to be a PITA here, what would be the guidelines to have systems be labled as "based on Fedora"? Especially what's the scope of logos and stuff like that when dealing with the "based on" part. I'm especially interested, so we could ship our systems with pre-loaded drivers for nVidia hardware[1]. The driver license allows redistribution, granted the end user agrees to the license. So I've thought a handful of solutions for that[2], but I wonder if the introduction of such slight modifications (or post-install modifications) would render us unable to use the Fedora logo in the menu (for instance) or the GDM greeter screen, as well as other concerns.
If what we want to do is plain impossible to do with Fedora, what would you recommend?
[1] Despite the fact I don't like nVidia as a company, I'll have to grant them that they're the only [High-End] graphics solutions that work 100% and at full speed in Linux, which cannot be said for ATi and their major speed problems, or about FOSS drivers which lack some functionality due to patent encumberment.
[2] I would still have to weight in options here, but one is to have a CD with all the custom, non Extras packages to do some sort of post-installation configuration during first boot. I'll have to gather more information for this, but one option would be to actually have a program similar to system-config-packages with all the optional software to be instlled during post-install configuration. Should a package need a special license agreement (like media players or drivers in this case), at confirmation the license(s) in question would be displayed. If the user does not agree to these, these packages won't be installed, but whatever other packages which fall under the scope of the GPL as Free software will. Problem: How to make a CD that Install Extra CDs during first boot will recognize and launch the [add-on] packages installation program. As part of these a slightly modified version of system-config-display would be included to use the "nvidia" and "fglrx" drivers rather than the "nv" or "radeon" drivers on supported nVidia/ATi graphics hardware.
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 12:59 -0600, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
Didn't know whether to ask this in another thread or not, but here goes all the same.
Is there any updates to the guidelines for use by system builders to be able to ship Fedora systems with some Fedora Extras packages from the get go?
I am meeting with Greg tonight to go over this. Hopefully we can come up with a guideline that is reasonable for all parties involved and present to Legal. From that point we can discuss alterations and changes to future revisions of the guideline if necessary.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 12:59 -0600, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
Didn't know whether to ask this in another thread or not, but here goes all the same.
Is there any updates to the guidelines for use by system builders to be able to ship Fedora systems with some Fedora Extras packages from the get go?
I am meeting with Greg tonight to go over this. Hopefully we can come up with a guideline that is reasonable for all parties involved and present to Legal.
Can we have the guidelines presented and hashed out here before pushing it to Legal? . Getting revisions in place after getting the original approval is a pain.
regards Rahul
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 00:37 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Can we have the guidelines presented and hashed out here before pushing it to Legal? . Getting revisions in place after getting the original approval is a pain.
I hope to be able to post something tonight, however I'm only in town until Thursday morning. We need to get in front of Legal some time tomorrow. We'll check for feedback before we go in.
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 14:26 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 00:37 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Can we have the guidelines presented and hashed out here before pushing it to Legal? . Getting revisions in place after getting the original approval is a pain.
I hope to be able to post something tonight, however I'm only in town until Thursday morning. We need to get in front of Legal some time tomorrow. We'll check for feedback before we go in.
So I made a mistake. I don't have to be in front of Legal, Greg can take care of that. Greg and I just met face to face as it was quicker to spitball that way. We made a lot of good progress, and he is preparing something for the list. I do believe he'll be posting something tomorrow for discussion before making any proposals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 12:59 -0600, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
Didn't know whether to ask this in another thread or not, but here goes all the same.
Is there any updates to the guidelines for use by system builders to be able to ship Fedora systems with some Fedora Extras packages from the get go?
I am meeting with Greg tonight to go over this. Hopefully we can come up with a guideline that is reasonable for all parties involved and present to Legal. From that point we can discuss alterations and changes to future revisions of the guideline if necessary.
Thank you very much, I eagerly wait for any results... We've been working like crazy to bring this project into realization from the documentation to schematics for hardware layout and stuff, to these legal aspects. We want to get this right from the start rather than make adjustments later on (which will be pretty much inevitable), but we'd like to be in full compliance from the very start.
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Gain Paolo Mureddu -
Greg DeKoenigsberg -
Jef Spaleta -
Jeremy Hogan -
Jesse Keating -
Marc Wiriadisastra -
Matthew Miller -
Patrick W. Barnes -
Rahul Sundaram