output redistribution issues again, was Re: [Fedora-livecd-list] Kadischi: roadmap from Board meeting ?

[Chitlesh GOORAH]

Hello,
Should I consider this as solved/answered ?

Nevertheless, I remind that if Kadischi/Legal wiki page isn't clear
enough, please say so and propose how it can be improved.

If you are having problem understanding a kadischi related wiki page,
then maybe somebody else will too. So let's work together and reduce
confusion.

Chitlesh

On 4/17/06, Jane Dogalt <jdogalt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Jane Dogalt <jdogalt at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > --- Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal
> >
> > I hate to be obtuse here Chitlesh, but seeing as how finally someone (Chris)
> > clearly has _precisely_ the same question as I do, I need to reiterate that
> > your supplied legal link does not answer my question.
>
> Ok.  I _think_ that reading the bottom most section of the wiki page, that the
> answer to my question is clearly "Yes, no problem".
>
> And especially now that I read the link to the redhat/fedora trademark
> guidelines, which I believe has changed signifgantly in the past 2 years, I
> think the answer is really "absolutely, no problem".
>
> My confusion, and I'm hoping to clear up other people's confusion here as well,
> stemmed from what I believe was a historical guideline which forbid the
> _inclusion_ of fedora/rh copyrighed artwork and trademarks in a derivative
> distribution.  In which case, merely having the fedora-logos.rpm files would
> make something unredistributable.  Perhaps this was never the case.  Certainly
> judging by the succinctness of the current trademark guidelines, and the
> following quote, it appears that my #2 case, and Question: below, are
> absolutely not a problem-
>
> "Red Hat does not permit or consent to any use of its trademarks in any manner
> that is likely to cause confusion by implying association with or sponsorship
> by Red Hat."
>
> Although the more specific question is-  If people see a fedora logo on a gdm
> login screen on an iso called jane_dogalt_is_the_coolest.iso, would that "be
> likely to cause confusion by implying association with or sponsorship by Red
> Hat"?
>
> For my own purposes, I still think it will be wise for my own project to have a
> post install script which removes the fedora-logos.rpm package, so that users
> of my output needn't worry about splitting that legal hair.
>
> -jdog
>
>
>
> >
> > I think in the archive post I referenced, the situation of #2, is very
> > simple,
> > and I can't seem to get a straight answer from fedora.  Can you please
> > specifically answer my question in the above Kadischi Legal Wiki, i.e.
> >
> > Question:  If I as fedora/kadischi user, produce a livecd with kadischi (say
> > nothing more than the supplied minimal.ks and a post install script that adds
> > a
> > motd of "jane dogalt is the coolest"), am I legally allowed to post that on
> > my
> > own website for mass distribution under the title
> > "jane_dogalt_is_the_coolest.iso"?
> >
> > I.e. due to the default behavior of kadischi, fedora-logos*.rpm will be
> > installed.  Is that a problem?  If so would simply removing that rpm in a
> > post
> > install script resolve the distribution problem?
> >
> > I don't think I can specify the question any clearer than that.  And I for
> > the
> > life of me don't see an answer to that in the wiki-kadischi-legal you
> > referenced.
> >
> > -jdog
> >
> > >
> > > On 4/17/06, Chris Negus <cnegus at rucls.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 23:29 -0500, Jasper O'neal Hartline wrote:
> > > > > Jane Dogalt wrote:
> > > > > Now this is really strange, Kadischi is a tool to yes, to create LiveCD
> > > > > media..
> > > > > but to create Fedora Core CD media. Although Rahul mentions running
> > > > > Anaconda in Debian
> > > > > may be possible, I don't think right now is the time to be focusing any
> > > > > efforts on running Kadischi
> > > > > on everything but Fedora Core. Likewise in this same respect, Kadischi
> > > > > shouldn't be focusing
> > > > > on allowing users to build thier own "distribution". It is a LiveCD
> > tool
> > > > > not a distribution tool.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I think this is a good point. The Fedora project still hasn't,
> > > > in my mind, clearly stated how to legally use its logos and trademarks.
> > > > The Wiki says to make formal requests to use the logo. I've made two
> > > > such requests and have not gotten a response back.
> > > >
> > > > So the question is not whether or not we want to help people build their
> > > > own distributions from Kadischi. The question is how can someone legally
> > > > redistribute "anything" built with Kadischi? If you change the splash
> > > > screen or rebuild a package from source, is the resulting CD still
> > > > Fedora? If not, do we legally have to remove references to Fedora?
> > > >
> > > > -- Chris Negus
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Fedora-livecd-list mailing list
> > > > Fedora-livecd-list at redhat.com
> > > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://clunixchit.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > --
> > > Fedora-livecd-list mailing list
> > > Fedora-livecd-list at redhat.com
> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> --
> Fedora-livecd-list mailing list
> Fedora-livecd-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list
>


--
http://clunixchit.blogspot.com