4:41 p.m.
Greetings.
I'd like some clarification from the board if possible.
I'll use an example of the Xfce spin here, but this would apply to any
of the approved spins.
- The Xfce Spin was approved by the board to use the Fedora trademark a
while ago. So it can use fedora-logos and is an 'official' spin.
- If I make a rawhide Xfce spin right now with current rawhide packages
that seems to fall under:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Distributing_Fe...
Which says:
"use of the Fedora Trademarks is approved by the Fedora Board."
My questions:
1. Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for
life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it?
2. Do I need board approval for any Xfce compose thats not made by
rel-eng in an "official" capacity on fedora infrastructure? Or does the
approval in 1 work for this? We want to make weekly test releases of a
rawhide Xfce spin, do we need to request approval for each?
3. When changes are made to the spin kickstart, do I need to ask the
Board to vet and review them and reapprove the 'new' spin?
If the answer to those is that approval is needed, does using
'generic-logos' bypass that? And how much would that invalidate our
testing as we are not testing the thing that will be composed and
shipped.
Thoughts?
kevin
5 p.m.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 15:41:36 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> wrote:
1. Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for
life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it?
There is supposed to be a recurring spins process, but it isn't documented
yet.
2. Do I need board approval for any Xfce compose thats not made by
rel-eng in an "official" capacity on fedora infrastructure? Or does the
approval in 1 work for this? We want to make weekly test releases of a
rawhide Xfce spin, do we need to request approval for each?
I was wondering about this for the games spin, as I might bring some
rawhide copies to the WBC. It looks like if I call it a Fedora Remix
when I offer to people I am OK. But I may have misunderstood what the
Fedora Remix documention was saying.
3. When changes are made to the spin kickstart, do I need to ask the
Board to vet and review them and reapprove the 'new' spin?
Most likely that would first go through the spins group to see if the change
was significant enough to warrant bithering the board about it, but again
there isn't a documented process for this.
7:56 a.m.
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:00:53 -0500, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 15:41:36 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for
> life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it?
There is supposed to be a recurring spins process, but it isn't
documented
yet.
Off the record, since yes, it is not documented (very well or at all);
- all previously approved spins (for Fedora N) go back to status
"Incomplete" or "Development" after Fedora N's General
Availability and for
the development cycle of Fedora N+1
- formally, the spin goes through the entire process again, including
"Review by Spins SIG" and including "Trademark approval by Board"
- informally, this means that the board would not need to (re-)approve a
spin's trademark usage, if there's not at all that many changes -after all,
it's mostly tweaking the spin a little further, implementing new features
in the development cycle of Fedora N+1, etc, rather then rebuilding the
spin from the ground up and doing all kinds of nasty changes.
Now, what is considered a major change or what is considered "too many
changes" in order for the recurring trademark approval to need to pass the
board once more, is not set in stone. The Spins SIG obviously has a policy
of "when in doubt, ask board".
As an example, we have the Electronic Labs spin; it's changing it's base
desktop environment from KDE to GNOME (by means of including the
-desktop.ks instead of the -kde.ks).
The Spins SIG at this moment considers this a major change, but since the
basis of the change is still an approved and "permanent" spin, we don't
expect the board to require (re-)approval of the spin's trademark usage.
Does this make sense and if so, does it make sense to document it as such?
If not, what are we overlooking?
> 3. When changes are made to the spin kickstart, do I need to ask
the
> Board to vet and review them and reapprove the 'new' spin?
I guess the above (or the answers to the above) would also (partly) answer
this question.
-- Jeroen
2:56 p.m.
Sorry, arriving late to email today.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:56:15PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:00:53 -0500, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 15:41:36 -0600,
> Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for
>> life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it?
>
> There is supposed to be a recurring spins process, but it isn't
documented
> yet.
>
Off the record, since yes, it is not documented (very well or at all);
- all previously approved spins (for Fedora N) go back to status
"Incomplete" or "Development" after Fedora N's General
Availability and for
the development cycle of Fedora N+1
- formally, the spin goes through the entire process again, including
"Review by Spins SIG" and including "Trademark approval by Board"
- informally, this means that the board would not need to (re-)approve a
spin's trademark usage, if there's not at all that many changes -after all,
it's mostly tweaking the spin a little further, implementing new features
in the development cycle of Fedora N+1, etc, rather then rebuilding the
spin from the ground up and doing all kinds of nasty changes.
Now, what is considered a major change or what is considered "too many
changes" in order for the recurring trademark approval to need to pass the
board once more, is not set in stone. The Spins SIG obviously has a policy
of "when in doubt, ask board".
And that seems completely reasonable to me.
As an example, we have the Electronic Labs spin; it's changing
it's base
desktop environment from KDE to GNOME (by means of including the
-desktop.ks instead of the -kde.ks).
The Spins SIG at this moment considers this a major change, but since the
basis of the change is still an approved and "permanent" spin, we don't
expect the board to require (re-)approval of the spin's trademark usage.
Does this make sense and if so, does it make sense to document it as such?
If not, what are we overlooking?
Yes to both.
>> 3. When changes are made to the spin kickstart, do I need to
ask the
>> Board to vet and review them and reapprove the 'new' spin?
I guess the above (or the answers to the above) would also (partly) answer
this question.
As you noted Jeroen, there isn't a hard and fast rule because we think
the Spins SIG has the ability to discern what's a major (or arguably
major) change. The Board retains the responsibility of approving
trademark usage, and could require a resubmission when deemed
necessary. But in most cases questions can be resolved here fairly
quickly.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
5:05 p.m.
On 07/15/2009 03:11 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
I'd like some clarification from the board if possible.
I'll use an example of the Xfce spin here, but this would apply to any
of the approved spins.
- The Xfce Spin was approved by the board to use the Fedora trademark a
while ago. So it can use fedora-logos and is an 'official' spin.
- If I make a rawhide Xfce spin right now with current rawhide packages
that seems to fall under:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Distributing_Fe...
Which says:
"use of the Fedora Trademarks is approved by the Fedora Board."
Since I brought this up to Kevin Fenzi, let me add a concerns I have here:
Just in case, a rawhide snapshot of a spin is actually considered
pre-approved, What if someone takes Fedora KDE Spin kickstart file, adds
the updates repo or worse the rawhide repo and release it as Fedora KDE
Spin? Rawhide can be quite broken.
One more related use case:
Does the test day images released by the QA team covered by the current
trademark guidelines.
Rahul
3:01 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 03:35:39AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 07/15/2009 03:11 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> I'd like some clarification from the board if possible.
> I'll use an example of the Xfce spin here, but this would apply to any
> of the approved spins.
>
> - The Xfce Spin was approved by the board to use the Fedora trademark a
> while ago. So it can use fedora-logos and is an 'official' spin.
>
> - If I make a rawhide Xfce spin right now with current rawhide packages
> that seems to fall under:
>
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Distributing_Fe...
>
> Which says:
>
> "use of the Fedora Trademarks is approved by the Fedora Board."
Since I brought this up to Kevin Fenzi, let me add a concerns I have here:
Just in case, a rawhide snapshot of a spin is actually considered
pre-approved, What if someone takes Fedora KDE Spin kickstart file, adds
the updates repo or worse the rawhide repo and release it as Fedora KDE
Spin? Rawhide can be quite broken.
I would think that adding the rawhide repo to a trademark-approved
spin would qualify as a major change.
One more related use case:
Does the test day images released by the QA team covered by the current
trademark guidelines.
It doesn't make sense to me to worry about trademark approval for
images that are only going to be in use for a very short time. If
their survivability is a concern, I'll ask for QA to ensure they are
removed regularly after their usefulness has expired.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
4:41 p.m.
On 07/16/2009 01:31 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I would think that adding the rawhide repo to a trademark-approved
spin would qualify as a major change.
So rawhide snapshots of any release has to request for board approval or
rebrand them?
It doesn't make sense to me to worry about trademark approval
for
images that are only going to be in use for a very short time. If
their survivability is a concern, I'll ask for QA to ensure they are
removed regularly after their usefulness has expired.
Survivability is always a concern once it is public. I can download and
redistribute a test image to many people.
Rahul
4:45 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Paul W. Frields<stickster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
It doesn't make sense to me to worry about trademark approval
for
images that are only going to be in use for a very short time. If
their survivability is a concern, I'll ask for QA to ensure they are
removed regularly after their usefulness has expired.
<snip>
The images I'm currently composing for Rawhide Xfce Spin testing only
have a shelf life of approximately 1 week and then the image is
removed and replaced by a new rawhide compose for more testing, I'm
currently hosting them on some web space I have on a server at work
but if they need to be transitioned to some Fedora provided resource
so that it is seen as "Fedora from Fedora" and not "Fedora from <some
random guy>" in the larger scope of things, I would be very happy to
do so.
-Adam
--
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
5392
days inactive
5393
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Adam Miller -
Bruno Wolff III -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
Kevin Fenzi -
Paul W. Frields -
Rahul Sundaram