New trademark approval policy

[David Nalley]

Hi Pam, thanks for replying, I've replied inline below:

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Pamela Chestek <pchestek at redhat.com> wrote:
> on 08/02/2011 05:57 PM David Nalley wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Pamela Chestek <pchestek at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> on 08/02/2011 01:53 AM David Nalley wrote:
>
> There's also OEM pre-loads, and virtual images or appliances with
> unmodified Fedora software, for which permission has been granted.
> These, at least according to my reading, can contain any combination
> of software which exists in Fedora's repositories, and can be
> generated in virtually any method that works.
>
> This reading is the result of bad drafting on the trademark guidelines (my
> bad).  The intention was that we will allow the use of unmodified software
> approved as an authentic "Fedora" product in ways that are analogous to
> creating a copy of a DVD, but just in a different distribution environment.
> It was not the intention that the rules allow anyone to create a new
> combination of software and call it "Fedora" without approval.  No one but
> Fedora Board should be deciding what collection of software may bear the
> brand "Fedora."
>
> If we need special spins for virt because the installation process causes
> problems that will reflect badly on Fedora, that's a Board decision too and
> would need to change the guidelines to reflect the decision.
>
>
> Hi Pam,
>
> Thanks for weighing in.
> I have a series of questions for you based on your above email, and I
> really am not trying to be pedantic (I know, I shouldn't have to
> disclaim that, but.... :) ), but just trying to understand some of the
> differences.
>
> Oy, bad news.  Sounds like it's going to get over my head quickly --

That's ok, from reading the email I can see I might have assumed tons
of knowledge in my email, which is sadly easy to do on Fedora lists.
I'll try and make a few things more explicit.

>
> First a disclaimer.  I'm not fully aware of the problems with Board approval
> or even how the Board manages approval of spins. So I'm not trying to be the
> Great Oz here, or usurp Board authority, but instead give a read on what we
> meant to  say in the trademark guidelines, which now I see appears to be
> worded in a way that has led to some different interpretations. (The life of
> a lawyer.  There are always unintentional drafting loopholes.)

I didn't infer that, and while there are process problems (IMO) around
some of these things, it's my perception that we are essentially bound
by the guidelines and guidance provided by Legal, largely in the
trademark guidelines. And while I know that you've certainly expressed
openness to tweaking the guidelines in the past for the community, I
guess we (or at least I) are all trying to figure out where the lines
in the road are at the moment.

> We also seem
> to be referring to virt and cloud as synonyms and I'm not sure they are.
> But for purposes of this email I'll assume we're talking about cloud and
> that the virt guidelines are meant to apply to cloud.

For the purposes of this discussion as it applies to what we are
talking about, virtualization and cloud are the same. Virtualization
is the corner stone of Infrastructure as a service clouds, (though of
course cloud is a wonderfully ambiguous term - IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, and
anything else a vendor wants to hype/sell has the buzzword cloud
attached (and I say that as a person with a cloud.com email address :)
)).

>
> So should I read your intention as saying that the OEM and virt
> sections should be read to only permit images/pre-loads of
> environments distributed as LiveCDs? (and thus not the install DVDs)
>
> No, I didn't intend to distinguish LiveCDs from install DVDs.  I think some
> of the confusion may be around what "Fedora" means.

I think indeed it could be. So I am going to apologize for what may be
a long and boring read, but I'm going to disclaim/explain a few items.

So there is Fedora the distribution - and we make a number of what
we'll simply call media, this could be for USB sticks, virtual
machines in the cloud, CDs to be used to install etc. However, over
the years the number and size of packages that Fedora contains has
exceeded the space that's available on even a DVD. This means that
even the install DVD never contains the complete collection of
packages which are Fedora. There's also the thousands of updates to
those packages which are likewise in the official Fedora repos, but
were never on the Install DVD or LiveCDs. (for instance a new version
of Firefox)

* Net-Install CD - this essentially contains a VERY small environment
on the CD image which allows you to connect to the internet, and
access the full collection of Fedora packages. The choice of which of
the official Fedora packages is installed is completely up to the end
user.

* Install DVD - this is a subsection of the Fedora packages contained
in the official Fedora repositories. Essentially the packages to be
included on this DVD are (hopefully) the most applicable and popular,
and allow people to install without needing to connect to the official
Fedora repositories. Within the constraints of the packages that are
on the DVD, what actually gets installed is completely up to the end
users (dependency issues aside) (and I should note that it's not quite
that certain, you can configure the installer to behave a bit more
like the Net-Install CD and connect to the official repos to gain
access to the full collection of Fedora software, but for the sake of
this discussion we'll ignore that)

* LiveCD/Spins - this is a preassembled collection of packages
effectively installed in an image that's burned to CD or USB drive.
That image can then be installed onto a computer. The end user, when
they install, has no choice as to what packages are installed. After
installation they can of course change that after installation.

* Virtual image - much like a LiveCD this has been pre-assembled by
someone (RelEng, CloudSIG, someone in Linode's engineering department,
etc) and the end user has no choice as to what is actually installed.

> In this case, I'm
> thinking of it as as a collection of packages distributed as a cohesive
> whole.

Aha!!! I think we are getting closer to understanding, or at least I am.
So let me ask one question deeper.
Is the 'collection of packages distributed as a cohesive whole' the
collection of packages which are in the official Fedora repositories?,
or on the DVD, or LiveCDs?

So for instance, in Fedora (at least for my definition) I maintain a
piece of software called postal which is a benchmarking tool for mail
servers. While I find it a useful tool, I imagine most others do not.
It's not on any official Fedora-produced media or spins (to my
knowledge). However, it is in the official Fedora repositories:
http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/15/Everything/i386/os/Packages/postal-0.70-7.fc15.i686.rpm
And a Fedora user can install it and keep only official Fedora software.

So under your above thinking, is the above package for postal part of
Fedora (the collection of packages distributed as a cohesive whole)?

>Ignoring the chip architecture, we offer a number of versions of
> Fedora software that fit in this definition.  Besides just the
> LiveCD/install DVD choice, we have different desktop spins, a design spin,
> game spin, security spin, etc.  All these iterations have been identified as
> collections that Fedora is willing to have under the brand "Fedora."
>
> Other meanings of "Fedora" include a community, and a place where one can
> find a wide variety of software programs.  I think the latter meaning is
> what's causing the problem, but this is NOT what was meant in the trademark
> guidelines' reference to "Fedora software." What was meant was the above
> collection definition.
>
> If an image could be generated using something analogous to what could
> be done with an install DVD, is that permissible? (without needing an
> additional level of approval)
>
> This is more in line with what was intended in the trademark guidelines, but
> whether this is an acceptable methodology is up to the Board.  The Board is
> responsible for the brand standards for Fedora and therefore has the
> responsibility for deciding what steps need to be taken before any given
> product may carry the "Fedora" brand. From reading the emails it looks like
> some problems with installation might be reflecting poorly on the Fedora
> brand, but it's the Board's responsibility to decide how significant the
> problem is and how to handle it.
>
> The install DVD (well really, Anaconda) permits the addition of
> repositories at install time. So theoretically I could take an install
> DVD (and iirc, this is automatically done with the Fedora netinstall
> CD image) and add the official Fedora repositories, and from the
> released media, install virtually any combination of Fedora software.
> So would starting with the install DVD or netinstall CD and creating a
> pre-load or appliance/virtual image of official software from using
> the official repositories be permissible without additional levels of
> approval?
>
> There's a difference between you taking an original product and making your
> own modifications and someone else passing off a modified product as the
> original. I can buy some Levis and make them all sparkly with My Little Pony
> appliques but I can't then sell them as authentic Levis.  So no, you can't
> take an official Fedora release, modify it, and still call it Fedora without
> the Board's approval.


Hmmm - I have to admit I am not fond of the analogy. I think it clouds
the issue by mixing in 'who' does it as opposed to what is done. E.g.
if Levi Strauss and Co. put splarky appliques on their jeans they
could still call them Levis, or if Levi Strauss offered appliques as
jean accessories, you could presumably still apply them and they'd
still be Levis.

Let me offer what I think is a better analogy.
I go to my local Porsche dealer, and he has some nice cars, but they
really don't have the options I am looking for on the car I want on
the lot. (though they have plenty of the brand and model (analogous to
Distribution and version). Instead - the dealer offers to order from
the factory the Brand and Model of car that I want, with the factory
options that I want. They aren't going to give me a Yugo, Ford, or
Ferrari engine, that's not one of the options the factory (analogous
for the official repository of fedora packages) will deliver. And if
the dealer offered to rip the engine out, and put a Yugo engine in it
for me, I'd agree, it'd stop being a Porsche. It would be based on a
Porsche, but not truly a Porsche anymore. I think this is even more
apropos because there are factory approved and supplied options that
the dealer can install and still sell and call the vehicle by the
Brand.


>
> Alternatively, I could take the install DVD and using only the
> packages on the DVD and create an installation that I *think* is
> identical to the installed pieces that some of our spins generate,
> which ironically are required to seek trademark approval from the
> Board.
>
> Finally, does this message revoke Spot's message that the Cloud SIG
> can generate and publish their own AMI for Amazon EC2, containing only
> Fedora software, without seeking Board approval?
>
> When I read Spot's message I read it as stating that an approved collection
> that has the brand Fedora could be installed in the cloud environment
> without further approval.  As a non-engineer that seemed correct and fine to
> me - at the time we added virt to the trademark guidelines I can tell you
> the intention and understanding was "same collection, different distribution
> method, no problem."   But that was before I understood that the transition
> from a LiveCD/DVD to cloud might not be as seamless as I thought.

So I think my confusion lies with 'what is Fedora'  and really what is
the 'approved collection that has the brand Fedora'.

Let me restate what I think you said and see if I understand you line
of thinking:

If you make available a(ny) subset of 'the collection of packages
distributed as a cohesive whole' known as Fedora and there is no
additional content that isn't from 'the collection of packages
distributed as a cohesive whole', from the standpoint of the trademark
guidelines it would be permissible for the marks to be used without
additional approval.


>
> The trademark guidelines cannot be used to overrule the Board's efforts at
> enforcing brand standards.

So I am speaking for myself, and not the rest of the Board, but my
perception is that the TM guidelines are the fence that surrounds the
field in which we are playing, and that the TM guidelines are set down
by the (benevolent) mark owner. Admittedly RHT has been very
accomodating when there needs to be a change, but I don't see that the
Board is setting the rules here, as a matter of fact, I am using the
TM guidelines significantly when I am voting on TM-related issues
brought to the Board.

> If it turns out that there is a significant
> enough difference between the LiveCD/DVD and a cloud distribution that in
> the Board's opinion there needs to be a separate approval process for cloud
> product to ensure it meets brand standards, then the trademark guidelines
> need to be revised to reflect that.  I will reiterate, though, that even if
> the Board decides that creating a cloud image doesn't need additional
> approval, that "Fedora software" means a collection already approved by the
> Board,

Interesting.
A collection approved by the Board. Aside from the spins, I don't know
that we've ever explicitly approved any collection of Fedora software.
Admittedly I am in my first term on the Board, but it's tended to be
relatively transparent and I don't recall the Board ever approving the
collection of software that's on the Install DVD or netInstall for
instance. I'll go peruse the Board's archives tonight and see if I am
perhaps missing something.

> not just a collection of anything hosted on Fedora put together by
> any Tom, Dick or Harry. The difference between a virt distribution and a
> media distribution was meant to be means of access only, not the software in
> the collection.
>

The 'who' part of the above paragraph bothers me. RHT can use the mark
however they want, and the TM guidelines apply to everyone else.
Defining 'who' I fear is polarizing, and certainly the use of 'Tom,
Dick, and Harry' strikes me as almost pejorative (though I am sure it
wasn't your intent). The people who are hamstrung the most by
ambiguity in the guidelines, or onerous process caused by the
guidelines are the people who build the Fedora distribution. And while
I tremendously value the brand of Fedora, it's nothing without the
people who are the Fedora community.


> Think of the trademark guidelines for the software this way:  the goal is to
> give as much flexibility in distribution of approved product as possible.

We are circling around this definition of what is fedora or the
approved product. From reading earlier comments it sounds like that is
essentially anything the Board defines it to be?

> When presented with another distribution use case, we think "will the
> consumer experience for product distributed in this way under these
> conditions be the same as any other authentic Fedora product - is it safe to
> allow it to be called the real thing?"

So perhaps I am reading this too literally, but I think that we have a
number of different user experiences out there.
The default LiveCD experience is substantially different from say the
XFCE spin. We could install a Fedora 15 instance for which the
'install experience' is completely different than any of the
'products'.
Now if you are asking if any collection of software in the official
Fedora repos has the Fedora qualities of having 'Freedom, Features,
and First' then I'd say yes, any combination accomplishes that, maybe
even a combination that includes postal. :)


>
> I'll reiterate my disclaimer:  I have not discussed this with the Board and
> have no current insight into what its thoughts are on a cloud product.  I
> offer these points only for clarification of what the intent was with the
> trademark guidelines and to explain the interaction of the guidelines and
> the Board's role in setting brand standards.
>


Pam,

I just want to say thanks for participating publicly in this
conversation. I know it takes a ton of time to thoughtfully respond,
and it's doubly painful for attorneys to discuss such things both
publicly and with minds that have just a bit of domain knowledge. I,
and I am sure the community, is extremely thankful for your
willingness to engage and it reminds me why Red Hat is such an awesome
sponsor and partner.


--David