On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 08:57 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 18:25 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > * People who are redistributing something based on Fedora, but who are > > NOT following the above redistribution guidelines, may NOT use the Fedora > > logo. If they choose to use the text "based on Fedora," we won't stop > > them. > > While I don't disagree with anything in this policy, Aurora would not be > permitted to use the Fedora logo as we are simply taking Fedora universe > packages, patching for sparc, and adding sparc specific OSS utils. > > Not that I care too much (we're not really _using_ the logo today), but > it is worth pointing out. As much as I think we'd like to automate the heck out of this process so we don't bottleneck anything, would it be worth having an appeal clause like Jabber uses, so we can review and approve some otherwise unapproved usage? spot's doing the kind of thing we generally encourage as far as the FOSS ideals. Or maybe we're missing another item in the list. This may be a stupid (and Pandoraesque) question, so I'll apologize up front for it, but it's honest at least: why is Aurora not part of Fedora, as far as providing build tools, CVS space and such?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
