[Fedora-spins] When to rebrand fedora?

[Bryan Kearney]

Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:19 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> 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?)
>>>
>>> Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind drinking 
>>> my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-)
>> This part I'm not so sure of.  "Limited distribution" in an age of
>> convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot.  Rather, we should be
>> working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy
>> for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous.
> 
> Sorry to reply to myself.  I wanted to make it doubly clear that I'm
> *only* talking about spins that use non-Fedora bits.  The barrier for
> spins using only Fedora bits should be as low as possible.

I added this to the dicussion page for the trademarks. If we define a 
"SPIN" as something the board approves of and devotes resources too, 
then I am also interested in appliances/usbs which are done by third 
parties. Having the "based on" mark would be great.

-- bk