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

Re: OT: Media format patents and commercial installations



On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 17:59 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 12:56 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 11:37 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > > 
> > > In any company with >1 employee, the liklihood of one person not
> > > knowing what another person is doing is high.  Intentionally tying
> > > actions of one person to the work of a (quite likely) functionally
> > > unrelated person is frowned upon.  Legally requiring that the sales
> > > web site, paper (translated) docs, etc. change whenever a software
> > > developer fixes a bug is a sure way to ensure Fedora isn't as widely
> > > used as we would like. 
> > 
> > So where do you draw the line on when 'changes' are changes enough to
> > require a name change?  Blurring the trademark line is a sure way to
> > lose the trademark, and we do NOT want that to happen.
> 
> Remember, IANAL, I'm just a man with a SPARC (or twenty).
> 
> This is a very tricky issue, Debian is going through the same pain.
> There isn't an easy answer here.
> 
> When does Fedora stop being Fedora? Does a new kernel stop it? Does a
> new kernel module stop it? Does a different glibc stop it? Does a
> different compiler stop it (icc)? Does an addon package outside of Core
> or Extras stop it?
> 
> Even with these hard questions, I have a proposal:
> 
> IMHO, the most logical thing is to say that only board approved Fedora
> projects can generate new content that is permitted to use the Fedora
> trademark/logo (people redistributing/selling these generated Fedora
> works aren't generating new content, so it's still Fedora).
> 
> (The board would retain the right to cancel projects (what happens if
> some formerly acceptable project decides to start making malicious
> Fedora viruses?) and no longer permit those former-projects the right to
> use the trademark/name.)
> 
> But while this would cover things like Fedora Legacy and Fedora Unity,
> it wouldn't cover the Third Party/OEM case where they have a want or
> need to add/change things in a Fedora work. We want to encourage these
> vendors to use Fedora works, but at the same time, we don't want to have
> damage done with something calling itself Fedora.
> 
> One idea might be an Third Party/OEM policy case, where Fedora Board
> approved Third Party/OEM works can use the name Fedora as long as it is
> accompanied with some additional text, and the modifications are
> documented:
> 
> Fedora Core 5 $OEM_3RDPARTY_NAME Edition
> 
> This gives the Fedora Community some oversight into how the
> trademark/logo is used, but increases the responsibility of the Fedora
> Board.
> 
> Does the Third Party/OEM have to "recertify" with the Fedora Board if
> they want to change/update a package on the release? I'd argue that if
> they were merely updating it with newer Fedora content (aka, Fedora
> Core/Extras updates), then they do not, but any other changes (adding
> new packages not from existing Fedora Works, modifying Fedora Works
> beyond what was originally documented and approved) would require a new
> "trademark certification".
> 
> I'd also like a page on the wiki that lists all approved Third Party/OEM
> efforts, where each item links to the documented modifications.
> 
> Thoughts?

This is pretty good IMHO.  Would it be worthwhile for one of the
guidelines to require that the fedora-release package be
installed/retained?  This would dictate that at least the official
repositories are referenced, which would mean that a user of any FCn
$OEM edition would be able to install the full range of official Fedora
software.  This would avoid situations in which users complain about a
"broken" $OEM edition which doesn't include expected software.

Perhaps there are other "make or break" packages of this type.
fedora-logos?  kernel*?  Just a thought...

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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