On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 4/20/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating 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.
So who gets to use the "second" mark? And how is this any different from a parallel question: how does Fedora "bless" some websites, for example, with the official mark, but not others.
Greg and I had an interesting conversation with some of our lawyers not too long ago in which we went to them with the idea of having two marks -- one "official" mark that was strongly protected, and a second mark that was more open and permissive in its terms.
What we heard back was a fairly compelling argument for why it's better to just have *one* mark that we maintain guidelines around. That's *the* mark for Fedora, and things that use that mark have the blessing of the Board. The value in monitoring and protecting a second mark was pretty questionable.
Greg -- can you chime in a bit here? I don't feel like I'm summarizing that particular conversation very well, and maybe this thread will give us cause to revisit it.
-- Max Spevack + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/~mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21