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, 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 ;-)
Jeroen van Meeuwen
I created the following directory (based on an idea by kanarip) to fight
the duplication of %post scripts in the current kickstart files in GIT:
The main idea would be that spin maintainers could just include the
fitting snippet files in their kickstarts - for example by using:
So what do you think of the general approach? And the naming of those
By the way: First post, so good to see you here... :)