Fedora Remix definition

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:10:35PM -0500, Chris Tyler wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 09:56 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm about to create some Fedora Remixes and I'm not quite sure whether
> > it is one or not (in the trademark sense). I know it's been discussed
> > a lot, but I see some contradictions:
> 
> 
> Hi Axel,
> 
> As the board worked through the trademark guidelines, we scoped down two
> terms: "spin" and "remix". Here's the difference:
> 
> - A Spin consists only of packages from the Fedora repositories. It is
> trademark-approved by the board and has gone through the Spins process
> (which is being refined by fesco). People using a spin can have the same
> confidence in license freedom as Fedora distribution users -- in fact,
> the main Fedora distribution images are effectively a spin too. The
> official Fedora logo may be used in conjunction with spins.
> 
> - A Remix consists of packages from the Fedora repositories but may also
> contain other packages. It does not require trademark approval and does
> not have to go through the spins process. Anyone can produce a remix at
> any time without any formal process. The Fedora Remix "secondary mark"
> may be used on Remixes, providing some really simple guidelines are
> followed.
> 
> I hope this helps clarify the situation. As soon as the trademark
> guidelines and Spins process are finalized (and we're pretty much
> there), we'll start pumping the message about these terms.
> 
> Paul and Spot have been driving this process -- here are the relevant
> pages:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/New_trademark_guidelines
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Secondary_trademark_usage_guidelines

Thanks for providing this summary Chris.

In the context of the "one Fedora package" question, it's important to
remember that the key goals of having Remixes are to (1) allow the
downstream to inherit some of Fedora's brand power, and (2) help the
downstream drive interest in Fedora as the upstream.

When I spoke with Red Hat Legal about this very issue, we didn't see a
need to draw a line at a specific package content level because we
felt that if someone is really driven to market Fedora because of
including one package, who are we to stop them?  If there's a great
argument against this, though, we don't have to consider this
particular door closed.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20081230/596a8bf5/attachment.sig>