on 08/02/2011 05:57 PM David Nalley wrote:
Oy, bad news. Sounds like it's going to get over my head quickly --On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Pamela Chestek <pchestek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:on 08/02/2011 01:53 AM David Nalley wrote: There's also OEM pre-loads, and virtual images or appliances with unmodified Fedora software, for which permission has been granted. These, at least according to my reading, can contain any combination of software which exists in Fedora's repositories, and can be generated in virtually any method that works. This reading is the result of bad drafting on the trademark guidelines (my bad). The intention was that we will allow the use of unmodified software approved as an authentic "Fedora" product in ways that are analogous to creating a copy of a DVD, but just in a different distribution environment. It was not the intention that the rules allow anyone to create a new combination of software and call it "Fedora" without approval. No one but Fedora Board should be deciding what collection of software may bear the brand "Fedora." If we need special spins for virt because the installation process causes problems that will reflect badly on Fedora, that's a Board decision too and would need to change the guidelines to reflect the decision.Hi Pam, Thanks for weighing in. I have a series of questions for you based on your above email, and I really am not trying to be pedantic (I know, I shouldn't have to disclaim that, but.... :) ), but just trying to understand some of the differences. First a disclaimer. I'm not fully aware of the problems with Board approval or even how the Board manages approval of spins. So I'm not trying to be the Great Oz here, or usurp Board authority, but instead give a read on what we meant to say in the trademark guidelines, which now I see appears to be worded in a way that has led to some different interpretations. (The life of a lawyer. There are always unintentional drafting loopholes.) We also seem to be referring to virt and cloud as synonyms and I'm not sure they are. But for purposes of this email I'll assume we're talking about cloud and that the virt guidelines are meant to apply to cloud. No, I didn't intend to distinguish LiveCDs from install DVDs. I think some of the confusion may be around what "Fedora" means. In this case, I'm thinking of it as as a collection of packages distributed as a cohesive whole. Ignoring the chip architecture, we offer a number of versions of Fedora software that fit in this definition. Besides just the LiveCD/install DVD choice, we have different desktop spins, a design spin, game spin, security spin, etc. All these iterations have been identified as collections that Fedora is willing to have under the brand "Fedora."So should I read your intention as saying that the OEM and virt sections should be read to only permit images/pre-loads of environments distributed as LiveCDs? (and thus not the install DVDs) Other meanings of "Fedora" include a community, and a place where one can find a wide variety of software programs. I think the latter meaning is what's causing the problem, but this is NOT what was meant in the trademark guidelines' reference to "Fedora software." What was meant was the above collection definition. This is more in line with what was intended in the trademark guidelines, but whether this is an acceptable methodology is up to the Board. The Board is responsible for the brand standards for Fedora and therefore has the responsibility for deciding what steps need to be taken before any given product may carry the "Fedora" brand. From reading the emails it looks like some problems with installation might be reflecting poorly on the Fedora brand, but it's the Board's responsibility to decide how significant the problem is and how to handle it.If an image could be generated using something analogous to what could be done with an install DVD, is that permissible? (without needing an additional level of approval) There's a difference between you taking an original product and making your own modifications and someone else passing off a modified product as the original. I can buy some Levis and make them all sparkly with My Little Pony appliques but I can't then sell them as authentic Levis. So no, you can't take an official Fedora release, modify it, and still call it Fedora without the Board's approval.The install DVD (well really, Anaconda) permits the addition of repositories at install time. So theoretically I could take an install DVD (and iirc, this is automatically done with the Fedora netinstall CD image) and add the official Fedora repositories, and from the released media, install virtually any combination of Fedora software. So would starting with the install DVD or netinstall CD and creating a pre-load or appliance/virtual image of official software from using the official repositories be permissible without additional levels of approval? Alternatively, I could take the install DVD and using only the packages on the DVD and create an installation that I *think* is identical to the installed pieces that some of our spins generate, which ironically are required to seek trademark approval from the Board. Finally, does this message revoke Spot's message that the Cloud SIG can generate and publish their own AMI for Amazon EC2, containing only Fedora software, without seeking Board approval? When I read Spot's message I read it as stating that an approved collection that has the brand Fedora could be installed in the cloud environment without further approval. As a non-engineer that seemed correct and fine to me - at the time we added virt to the trademark guidelines I can tell you the intention and understanding was "same collection, different distribution method, no problem." But that was before I understood that the transition from a LiveCD/DVD to cloud might not be as seamless as I thought. The trademark guidelines cannot be used to overrule the Board's efforts at enforcing brand standards. If it turns out that there is a significant enough difference between the LiveCD/DVD and a cloud distribution that in the Board's opinion there needs to be a separate approval process for cloud product to ensure it meets brand standards, then the trademark guidelines need to be revised to reflect that. I will reiterate, though, that even if the Board decides that creating a cloud image doesn't need additional approval, that "Fedora software" means a collection already approved by the Board, not just a collection of anything hosted on Fedora put together by any Tom, Dick or Harry. The difference between a virt distribution and a media distribution was meant to be means of access only, not the software in the collection. Think of the trademark guidelines for the software this way: the goal is to give as much flexibility in distribution of approved product as possible. When presented with another distribution use case, we think "will the consumer experience for product distributed in this way under these conditions be the same as any other authentic Fedora product - is it safe to allow it to be called the real thing?" We thought at the time we added virt to the trademark guidelines that the answer was yes, but now it appears that may not be the case because there are quality issues. If we were wrong in that judgment, then we need to make an adjustment so brand quality is maintained. I'll reiterate my disclaimer: I have not discussed this with the Board and have no current insight into what its thoughts are on a cloud product. I offer these points only for clarification of what the intent was with the trademark guidelines and to explain the interaction of the guidelines and the Board's role in setting brand standards. Pam --
Pamela S. Chestek Senior IP Attorney Red Hat, Inc. 1801 Varsity Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 919-754-4473 pchestek@xxxxxxxxxx |
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
