Fedora derivatives branding discussion

[Rudolf Kastl]

2006/4/20, Jesse Keating <jkeating at j2solutions.net>:
> On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 20:19 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
> >
> > but its still derived from fedora isnt it? distcc is hanging idle in
> > bugzilla for ages :)
> > someone finish the review.
> >
>
> No, because (as Max forgot to mention) the Based on Fedora must be based
> on the Binary packages, not rebuilds of the source packages.  No
> published Binary, can't use it.
>
> --
> Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
> Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
> GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBER9GC4v2HLvE71NURAuNaAJ9wuKem64SyF0ADSH9uyxt4khiRgACgkyEy
> /f7+cbIOoFFKRLNGYMXOUNQ=
> =U6nE
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
> Fedora-marketing-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
>
>
id have to remove all art and branding etc... ok...

but then again calling it "derived of fedora" is legal? i am still
just curious... sorry for keeping on asking the same question. is only
"fork of fedora" legal then?