Fedora derivatives branding discussion -- the root problems (revisited/simplified)
Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.org
Fri Apr 21 18:01:17 UTC 2006
Andre Nogueira <andre.nogueira.fedora at gmail.com> wrote:
> The main problem I see with allowing the Fedora logos and images to
> be used in Fedora-Based distros is that most people (and here I'm
> talking about the average Joe who barely knows how to turn on his
> computer) will probably think that Fedora and Fedora-Based distros
> are the same.
It's more than that. It's a legal issue with regards to trademark
No distribution was more widely used (and misused) than Red Hat(R)
Linux. Virtually every other distro out there, sans maybe Debian,
has _never_ run into the same level of proliferation as Red Hat(R)
Linux did. Even Novell is either going to have to lay down some anal
rules on "SuSE(R)" or find the trademark could become public domain
(or maybe they don't care?).
This is the primo #1 reason why Fedora(TM) was created by Red Hat(R)
in the first place. No matter how they clarified the usage for
Cheapbytes and others, their goodwill got raped by Cobalt/Sun and
then they got rhetoric from Cheapbytes and others. No good dead goes
We need to not only give an avenue for B) those 100% redistributable
derivatives, but those inevitable (and unavoiable) C) non-100%
redistributable derivatives. You do that technically with the
Anaconda tools themselves -- accomodating B and C. And you do it
legally by differentiating between B & C as well.
Again, I suggest ...
B) Unofficial Fedora(TM) Third Party [Distribution]
C) No-name [Distribution]
Anything that is a direct FC+FE equivalent or subset can be called
"Fedora(TM)," although having Anaconda identify it as a "Custom"
build might be nice to let people know it's not the Official.
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