On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:19 -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:58AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm) > >>> Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're > >>> obviously not that relevant. > >> Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main > >> Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to > >> be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a > >> sub-standard community-produced spin. > > > > The "Fedora Remix" mark was invented precisely to avoid community > > members having to go through an approval process. I made a wiki page > > for easy redirection if needed: > > So.. lemme throw this out again. What do folks think about the idea that > all spins in the spin-repository only carry the fedora mark. Not the > remix mark. If we did this, it would be very easy for the Spin SIG to > enforce the technical requirements. Sounds right. If the word "Spin" is reserved for Spin-SIG & trademark approved, then it's easy to explain what gets into the spin-repository and what doesn't. Any aspiring Spin would therefore be a Remix until it's approved, and for all remixes the technical quality and legal status (with respect to non-Fedora content) is up to the remixer. -Chris _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
