Fedora derivatives branding discussion

[Max Spevack]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> 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.

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