[Fedora-spins] When to rebrand fedora?

[Sebastian Dziallas]

Bryan Kearney wrote:
> Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
>> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>>> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>>>>> Bryan Kearney wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>> 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?)
>>
>> +1
>>
>> 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 
>> improvement.
> 
> So.. I kicked this off on the ISV list, and here was the original scenario.
> 
> <orig>
> I have a question. The other day I put out a sugar desktop appliance [1] 
> based on F9. It was pointed out that I violated the fedora trademark 
> policies. I did some digging, and the relevant page seems to be [2].
> 
> My question is what is a "modification". If you look at my kickstart 
> file [3], you see that I did 2 things which could be it:
> 
> a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora (xulrunner)
> b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo
> 
> [1] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugarAppliance.tar.gz
> [2] http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html
> [3] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugar.ks
> <orig>
> 
> My hope was that item (a) caused me to have to re-brand not item (b). 
> Since item (b) is what would be required for appliances and live cds. It 
> sounds like both A and B are issues. I will put these on the new 
> guidelines pages to disucss.
> 
> -- bk

Well... if I got it right - and feel free to correct me ;) - the current 
situation is  that item (a) and (b) both force you to rebrand your spin 
/ appliance, since they are non-Fedora bits :(

I had the same situation two weeks ago or so. I had created an education 
spin using an external repository, since we wanted to use already KDE 
4.1. But I didn't remove fedora-logos, so we needed to "pull the plug". 
(http://sdziallas.joyeurs.com/blog/2008/07/pulling-the-plug.html)

I'm really in favor of such a trademark policy change, since it 
simplifies the whole thing quite a lot. One wouldn't need to rebrand the 
whole spin, when it stays non-public. At least, a kind of clarification 
on this topic would be definitely useful, since apparently, I'm not the 
only one, who didn't remove fedora-logos at first. Well, you asked for 
clarification, but I think this should be clearly stated somewhere in 
the wiki, in which cases one needs to rebrand - or not.

Sebastian