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

Re: OT: Media format patents and commercial installations



Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 10:04 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 5/26/06, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram fedoraproject org> wrote:
Nothing stops you from modifying Fedora and including non-free software
for OEM systems. Trademark guidelines do not allow this system to be
called Fedora anymore though.  There has been discussions in fedora-
marketing list about this
Thanks, I'll take a look at the archives.

The way I read
http://fedora.redhat.com/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html

An OEM can market a system as Fedora + value addon under certain conditions.

<quote>
The original Fedora™ code is intact and identifiable at the time of
installation and on the media on which the code is delivered;

a)
The patches are provided independent of the original Fedora™ code and
are identifiable on the media on which the code is delivered;
</quote>

I read this to mean that when an OEM system is delivered/marketed what
comes in Fedora  and what the OEM is providing as a value addon are
clearly delineated. So in the case of media, the OEM addons are on
seperate media than the Fedora software.
Would an OEM need to supply the Fedora DVD and their addons install media even when the hardware has no CD/DVD drive ? Would a required separate network install server (ie ks over ftp) suffice ?

In the case of a pre-installed system, there must be a breakdown as to
what is provided as a value add-on before the system is purchased, and
I can see how this helps for example: third party patent encumbered or buggy packages because it is made clear that Fedora did not make them.

it must be clear in the packaging that certain packages are OEM
provided and not Fedora.
So, is this so the end user can know where they need to go for support for their box ?

<quote>
b)
The end user is given the discretion as to whether to install the patches; and
</quote>

I read this to mean that the OEM must provide a means by which to
opt-out of any value-added software pre-install, so that the purchaser
can choose a stock Fedora operating system install.  I would go
further and say this should be demanded as a no-cost option to the
purchaser.
Interesting angle. Without the addons/packages the box is a pure Fedora box. It can no longer do what the value-add provided. One advantage I can see is if an OEM where making a very price competitive box with addons, the end user could buy the box just to get the cheap hardware pre-installed with Fedora, and not require the effort to build/install/test a basic Fedora system. Is this why this guideline was framed ?

Or is it so that the end user could revert to a base Fedora system so that the box becomes "supportable" (eg if the box was having problems) ?

<quote>
...
Is my interpretation of these conditions wrong?

Seems to be right. The requirement is a clear segregation of what is
part of Fedora and what is not.
It also feels like a shortcut for competitors to an oem to get to the same stage of development. Is the segregation in generalities eg: OEM box has media-player-central-1.0.1.rpm and media-codecs-45.3 ? Or does this disclosure need to cover all config files that are changed from a default install eg. dns / ip / smb / ftp / desktop layout / menus ?
{like rpm -Va}

Also, thanks to all who have taken part in this discussion, it has been really informative :)

DaveT


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