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

Tue Apr 18 08:35:33 UTC 2006

--- Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> Should I consider this as solved/answered ?

For myself, I'll say yes for now.  But see caveat below.

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

While the fedora trademark guidelines seem quite explicit that redhat has no
intention to answer questions on the matter, you seem willing, so here is one-

For the purposes of the following citation, are fedora logos considered
"Redhat's trademarks"?  Or are they trademarks that belong to a foundation that
until very recently was entirely seperate from redhat, yet whose trademark
guidelines seem intertwined with redhats (i.e. yeah, I'm a bit confused)

"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"

The root of the issue is-

If I create output with kadischi, named mylivelinux.iso, which boots using the
default fedora logos on the graphical boot (and gdm default background, and
gnome default background), then would I be in danger of "being likely to cause
confusion by implying association with or sponsorship by Red Hat"?

Now mind you, from the rest of the page that contained that quote, the
implication is that redhat will not answer any questions or make the issue any
clearer.  But if you want to give it a shot Chitlesh, I'm all ears and I'd be
grateful.

-jdog

> 
> 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
> 
> --
> 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 