On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Might I suggest, as an alternative to punching me in the head, actually > *commenting on the draft* as I have repeatedly requested? ;-) Honestly, if we aren't going to be comfortable with people turning off certain "features" in a spin by default and removing some packages in a way that does not break package dependency chains in the resultng spin, then I doubt we are going to be comfortable with any other material change in trademark policy that makes it easier for people to use the marks. How is what the AOS people want to do as a spin.. any different than how we would expect as a best case scenario for people selling pre-configured Fedora branded systems to handle user customization? We aren't even dealing with a more complicated situation where there is a post install script mucking with the system configs at the end of the kickstart file. Are we going to tell the guy across town from me that he's not allowed to sell pre-configured Fedora systems with selinux disabled and associated selinux tools removed...even if I as a customer request him to do it for me? All the AOS image is is a pre-cooked configuration that our packaging configuration allows...no different than what I could get from the guy across town..except for the cost of having him do it for me...and the fact that the AOS guys probably have a better idea of what they are doing. If we are going to make some packages mandatory...then well..we should make it mandatory though package requirements and not let anyone remove those features post-install. Make every single one of our users deal with that requirement, instead of making this sort a thing a blocker on trademark use. -jef _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
