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