[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora spin from RpmFusion



Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 >
(The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times before...)


But technology and published legal guidelines change...

Not every other week in this context.

C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that include
   the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to
   do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )

If this is done, it should be rebranded and not called Fedora.


'should' is one of those words...

By my reading of the current trademark guidelines (before they disappeared from

http://rhold.fedoraproject.org/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/

it is totally possible (with a little initrd guru-dom) to repackage the fedora-8-livecd iso (other isos too, but I'll use this as an example), such that mp3 and rpmfusion(or other arbitrary repos) work 'out of the box'.

[unsnip]
Just make a new iso, that contains the old iso as is, with a new initrd and bootloader, that present the user with two choices-

a) "boot the official unmodified fedora-8-live image"

or

b) "boot the official fedora-8-live image, patched with mp3 support and software repository configuration that the fedora organization does not support or condone in any way"
[/unsnip]

I believe you are incorrect in this reading given everything I heard on this topic so far.

Rahul

Ok, thanks to MikeMC, I can defend my position from

http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html

"
Shipping Fedora™ code unmodified from the original download with separate patches that may be applied by the end user at his/her discretion is not a modification of the original code, provided:

   1.

The original Fedora™ code is intact and identifiable at the time of installation and on the media on which the code is delivered;
   2.

The patches are provided independent of the original Fedora™ code and are identifiable on the media on which the code is delivered;
   3.

The end user is given the discretion as to whether to install the patches; and
   4.

Any marketing materials related to such a distribution make clear that the vendor is providing patches which, if installed by the user, will modify the Fedora™ code from its original form.
"

Please tell me how my above thoeretical repackaging of fedora does not fall into this *very* explicitly permitted scenario.

-dmc


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]