Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 23:57 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
If they turn off all security and make 'honey pot linux - based on
fedora' as a livecd for catching would-be crackers, I have no problem
with that. It would be a good thing to have fedora's name on, I think.
If they put apt in place (and modify massive amounts of anaconda, etc,
to make it all work) then why not?
How does it hurt us?
You just said the magic words. "Based on Fedora", which is not Fedora.
I don't have a problem with people doing crazy ass things like taking
out selinux, removing yum, or even replacing the entire runtime with our
busybox, and calling it Based on Fedora. It's when they call it Fedora
that I get concerned.
For the sake of argument, and the point I tried to make earlier, let's
suppose the next proposed spin is "Fedora Different", purely intended to
show the ultimate, most extreme amount of tweaking you can still do
/within/ Fedora proper. Suppose the maintainers do the right thing so
that when it excludes yum from the system and includes apt, they patch
(upstream!) the entire toolchain and whatnot.
Would this be acceptable for Trademark approval?
If not, I suppose we're on our way to making a must-have and
may-not-have/may-not-change feature list including packages and toolchains.
If it is, then such a list is moot and we're going the case-by-case route.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
