[Fedora-spins] When to rebrand fedora?

[Bryan Kearney]

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