Fedora derivatives branding discussion

Rudolf Kastl che666 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 20 18:20:53 UTC 2006

2006/4/20, Andre Nogueira <andre.nogueira.fedora at gmail.com>:
> On 4/20/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating at j2solutions.net> wrote:
> >
> > That is no longer based on Fedora.  That includes parts of Fedora, but
> > adds to it, and thus cannot be claimed to be Fedora.  Get the package in
> > Extras (;
> That also solves the problem of a distro wanting to use proprietary
> software (which isn't acceptable in Fedora), while the rest is based
> on Fedora. (Eg, a distro which includes Acrobat Reader, but appart
> from that only includes Fedora packages).
> Otherwise, how would you distinguish an "almost" Fedora-based distro
> which includes proprietary packages, from another which includes free
> packages that are not in Fedora or Fedora Extras?
> Thanks,
> Andre

well that was exactly my question... what terms are "legal"... i am
neither a lawyer nor do i want to consult one at this point :).

Rudolf Kastl

> --
> Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
> Fedora-marketing-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list

More information about the marketing mailing list