On 04/17/2009 01:51 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Robert Scheck wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Let's face it: ATM the changes have caused confusion and discomfort in
the Fedora community. For example fedora.de has been taken offline
because of discrepancies between the trademark holder and the domain
owner. Robert as the domain owner is a well known and valuable
contributor of the project and all AFAIK all he did was redirecting to
fedoraproject.org.
I'm really pissed, but still hope that Paul comes up with something soon.
I'm not familiar with the text of the contract but I wanted to mention
something to those who might idly be following this thread to note that
Red Hat, as owners of the Fedora name, has to protect it everywhere it
knows about it. My understanding is if we don't protect it in one case,
we lose the protection everywhere. So even though the text of the
contract might be over zealous[1], the contract has to exist in some form.
As long as both sides stick to it, I'm sure a good middle ground will be
found.
And I think you're completely right. Like I said, the intention is to
work with us, so that we are protected (e.g. Red Hat is able to protect
us, the legitimate users of the Trademark).
If this first attempt fails in doing so, in our opinion, we can express
concerns and make suggestions and have the document improved. This
should be our goal, as a collective, to achieve a goal we pursue (a
protected Trademark with enforceable policies with all the freedoms
legitimate use requires).
-Jeroen
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
