Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
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 (...)!"
>> 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
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).
...and I'm happy that's the way it is :)
The Spin SIG already helped to simplify things significantly. So let's
not make it more complicated than we need to do. Just let me cite Jeff,
who stated some time ago on devel-list:
> Fact 0:
> We want people to build quality spins.
> Fact 1:
> our spin creation tools are make it dirt simple to create spins, but
> we still need a best-practices approach with human review to ensure
> Fact 2:
> We do not have the resource to build and host every possible spin
> that the community is interested in building.
How we handle fedora-release being the cause for "Welcome to
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.
I mean, we're not going to build the next CentOS or anything like this,
are we? Just take the folks there as an example: They need weeks or even
months for rebuilding the OS. Maybe this example isn't really fitting
here... but I agree with Jeroen - it might be almost impossible to wipe
the name Fedora from the whole distribution just for respinning it.
Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the
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?)
This sounds really reasonable! If this would be well defined and then
added to the trademark policy, it would be, in my opinion, a real
Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind
my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-)
/me gotta run for a cup of coffee, too ;)
Jeroen van Meeuwen
Fedora-spins mailing list