Fedora derivatives branding discussion
che666 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 20 18:03:58 UTC 2006
2006/4/20, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com>:
> On 4/20/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating at j2solutions.net> wrote:
> > But what about when the Fedora Red Hat "ships" is an amalgum of some
> > packages within the Universe (I hate this word)? Is it only a REAL
> > Fedora when it comes out of Red Hat?
> Things reviewed and blessed by the Fedora Board get access to the more
> restricted marks. As in a live-cd that the board reviews and blesses..
> gets access to the more restricted marks and don't need to claim
> "based on". but can still claim "based on." A livecd thats been built
> from Core+Extras sources but not reviewed/blessed by the board must
> use "based on" and uses the less restricted mark.
> If Red Hat wants to ship an amalgum that doesn't get reviewed and
> blessed by the Fedora Board... then no.. they dont get to use the more
> restricted mark... neener neener neener.
i think thats a pretty good idea of dealing with things in a fair way.
but just a question... what if i add a single package that isnt yet in
extras nor core... am i not allowed to call it "based on fedora" with
only minor changes that are documented in a clean way?
with having a distro that is 99,9% fedora (e.g. a live cd... e.g. with
distcc...) wouldnt it be still based on fedora from a pure technical
point of view?
How would i be able to call that live cd then?
> Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
> Fedora-marketing-list at redhat.com
More information about the marketing