Spins process - technical requirements

[Chris Tyler]

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:19 -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:58AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm)
> >>> Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're
> >>> obviously not that relevant.
> >> Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main
> >> Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to
> >> be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a
> >> sub-standard community-produced spin.
> > 
> > The "Fedora Remix" mark was invented precisely to avoid community
> > members having to go through an approval process.  I made a wiki page
> > for easy redirection if needed:
> 
> So.. lemme throw this out again. What do folks think about the idea that 
> all spins in the spin-repository only carry the fedora mark. Not the 
> remix mark. If we did this, it would be very easy for the Spin SIG to 
> enforce the technical requirements.

Sounds right. If the word "Spin" is reserved for Spin-SIG & trademark
approved, then it's easy to explain what gets into the spin-repository
and what doesn't. Any aspiring Spin would therefore be a Remix until
it's approved, and for all remixes the technical quality and legal
status (with respect to non-Fedora content) is up to the remixer.

-Chris