Fedora derivatives branding discussion
Chitlesh GOORAH
chitlesh at fedoraproject.org
Thu Apr 20 20:05:50 UTC 2006
> 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.
#001
For the second one, we can propose a different fedora-logos-XXX.rpm.
Thus as it's said
here http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html
there wont corruption for mere deletion of certain files.
If we don't propose another fedora-logos-XXX.rpm, guidelines will be enough.
#002
Last time, for Kadischi I came up with some Legal stuffs due to some
requests on the matter.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal
Its contents are what we are proposing for the moment.
#003
To my guess, these are some areas of thoughts we must be working on
for branding:
*built from
- Fedora Core, Extras Packages only
- Fedora Core, Extras Packages with own packages which are abiding
Fedora Policies.
---> ask to push to Extras
- Fedora Core, Extras Packages with propriety softwares
---> I know Livna is not officially supported. but at least we
might as them to push their propriety packages over there. But still
it's against Fedora Policy.
- from sources provided by fedora
*Derived From Fedora
* a fork of Fedora
#004, would there be special marks for product of livecd tool
(kadischi) provided by the Fedora Project?
If yes, I should work on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal as well.
Chitlesh
--
http://clunixchit.blogspot.com
More information about the Fedora-marketing-list
mailing list