On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > Having said that, Sugar and OLPC are a pretty big deal. The spin has been > > approved by the board and is (or will be) an official spin. > > Small comment. The board gave the Sugar spin the approval to use the > Fedora brand. This doesn't automatically mean that it'll become a > produced and hosted spin in binary format. All it means is that the > spin KS config can live in the spin-kickstarts repo and use the Fedora > branding should somebody create the binary spin from the config. It > would still have to have a Feature proposed and approved by the spins > SIG and by releng before it would be an official spin. I agree: trademark approval does not automatically mean that the spin will be hosted and distributed by Fedora infrastructure. I can imagine that we'll eventually have a much larger number of trademark-approved spins than we'll want to host and distribute -- h&d decisions should be made by some combination of the spins SIG, releng, and infra. We need to decide terminology here: we have "official spin", "unofficial spin", and "remix" floating around. "Unofficial spin" is sometimes being used the way I think "remix" was intended to be used, meaning something that doesn't have approval to use the primary trademark. Can we settle on: - "Remix" for "not approved to use the Fedora trademark" (but eligible to use the secondary mark). I don't think these will normally be hosted by Fedora. - "Spin" for "trademark-approved", further subdivided into: -- "Unofficial spin" (trademark-approved but has not gone through the Features process, and not h&d by Fedora) -- "Offical spin" (trademark-approved and has gone through the Features processs, h&d by Fedora) ? > Honestly this feels like a board issue, which is why I asked for it to > be brought to FAB. One of the options mentioned was to have a binary > version of the spin produced by the spin owner and hosted on OLPC > resources. I'm fine with this, the only catch is that the sources for > what goes into the spin will also have to be hosted over at OLPC for the > duration of time that the binary spin is there. This shouldn't be a big > deal, but it needs to be done. Why would they have to host sources? If it's an officially-branded spin, then it consists only of Fedora packages, so why not just point back to Fedora for the source?[0] -Chris [0] Note that a student is working on a web app to grab source from CVS for any given package name-version-release and return a .src.rpm for it, plus a script to scan an ISO and create a corresponding source ISO; thanks to Matt Domsch for the ideas. In the meantime everything is at least in CVS. _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
