Fedora derivatives branding discussion -- the root problems (revisited/simplified)
Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.org
Fri Apr 21 15:50:06 UTC 2006
I know it hasn't even been a day, but no one commented on my post. I
tend to be "long winded" so I'll cut my own message down in the hope
people will read it.
I basically wanted to point out that we should be addressing the real
_legal_ issues at the Anaconda tools themselves. If you make it easy
for people to change the logos with standard disclaimers right in the
installer, people _will_ do it.
Just a suggestion ...
"Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:
> A. Custom Fedora(TM) ... (FC+FE)
> B. Unofficial Fedora(TM) Third Party ... (FC+FE+100%RedistRPMs)
> C. No-name Redistribution ... (any other RPMS, with FC+FE)
> iii) "Click-through" Anaconda tools
> I think the way to solve this is in the Anaconda tools themselves.
> When you run any Anaconda tools, you have to create an _explicit_
> configuration file that states whether it's A, B or C. If it
> doesn't exist, Anaconda spits out a complaint to create one, or
> run a script that creates the settings file for them (prompts them
> for a few questions).
> IANAL, but from a legal perspective, if you give someone a tool
> that notifies them with a click through or they have to run an
> explicit command, and they _still_ use the trademark _incorrectly_
> -- I'd say you've got them by the balls. They have no excuse or
> ignorance argument. But IANAL.
Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance
b.j.smith at ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
I'm a Democrat. No wait, I'm a Republican. Hmm,
it seems I'm just whatever someone disagrees with.
More information about the marketing