Yet another website? (Re: [Ambassadors] belux ambassadors meeting log 15th April 2009)

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

On 04/17/2009 01:51 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Robert Scheck wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>> Let's face it: ATM the changes have caused confusion and discomfort in
>>> the Fedora community. For example fedora.de has been taken offline
>>> because of discrepancies between the trademark holder and the domain
>>> owner. Robert as the domain owner is a well known and valuable
>>> contributor of the project and all AFAIK all he did was redirecting to
>>> fedoraproject.org.
>> I'm really pissed, but still hope that Paul comes up with something soon.
>>
>
> I'm not familiar with the text of the contract but I wanted to mention
> something to those who might idly be following this thread to note that
> Red Hat, as owners of the Fedora name, has to protect it everywhere it
> knows about it.  My understanding is if we don't protect it in one case,
> we lose the protection everywhere.  So even though the text of the
> contract might be over zealous[1], the contract has to exist in some form.
> As long as both sides stick to it, I'm sure a good middle ground will be
> found.
>

And I think you're completely right. Like I said, the intention is to 
work with us, so that we are protected (e.g. Red Hat is able to protect 
us, the legitimate users of the Trademark).

If this first attempt fails in doing so, in our opinion, we can express 
concerns and make suggestions and have the document improved. This 
should be our goal, as a collective, to achieve a goal we pursue (a 
protected Trademark with enforceable policies with all the freedoms 
legitimate use requires).

-Jeroen