On Jan 30, 2008 9:45 AM, Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Honestly, I stand by what I thought at the time -- branding the > Directory Server as Fedora wasn't the best idea. It's somewhat (but not > really, because DS has a pretty low awareness level) confused the > "Fedora as an OS" message. I think it's also had a negative impact on > FDS being included in other distros, although that's harder to verify. > > Also, given Fedora's trademark guidelines, it's a little funky having > some random software project named Fedora Foo. I'm not really sure how > it starts to factor in when people start patching, etc. > Is there another namespace...non-trademarked space..that we can suggest people use for this sort of thing? I think you might be right in that Fedora should be reserved for integration efforts that look and feel like functional operating systems or branded online services, and not component bits which we want other people to pick up and use. For the same reasons that I'd love to get fedora's brand into components that other distros consume, other people would shy away from consuming those components. So overall I think its a detriment to allow software projects to use the Fedora brand. We want upstream codebases to leverage Fedora to help with their development, but we explicitly don't want to be the sole provider of that technology, that isn't our goal. Perhaps its a simple as requiring projects have a existing brand neutral project name, but we allow them to use a tag like: "Brought to you by the Fedora project", or "A Fedora Project snafu" -jef _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
