Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:The guidelines were specifically designed so that someone could ship stock Fedora and an additional repository of vendor packages, whether it be Dell addons, Creative Commons content or whatever. If those guidelines are followed, then, without actually changing the guidelines, it doesn't really matter what that content/packages are.That is indeed my implicit question. Do you still want vendors to ship software not included in Fedora and still call it Fedora?
Nobody currently gets to call anything "Fedora" that isn't a very specific set of bits that are originally and solely shipped by the fedora project.
What they get to do, is take those bits as a whole, not modify them in any way whatsoever, and bundle them with other software, with the explicit restriction that-
" 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.
" Is it ok for
anyone and everyone to do so with any set of software? Does the current trademark guidelines match the goals of the project?
Honestly, what business is it of yours, how people distribute *unmodified* copies of fedora? Sure I'd love to have a legal license which states that any free software I write, cannot be used by governments to support in any way whatsoever an institution which engages in 'baiting' tactics that use entrapment as justification for murder, but I'm a realist. Hopefully our software will save more babies than it kills (or 'eats' is I suppose the parlance of choice...)