When to rebrand fedora?

[Paul W. Frields]

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.

-- 
Paul W. Frields
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://paul.frields.org/   -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/isv-sig/attachments/20080731/295a73b4/attachment.bin