On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 05:04:09PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 08:45:48PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> I've thought about this a bit since the meeting and I was wondering whether a > >> process similar to third parties wanting to use the Fedora name in their URL > >> might be appropriate. Its obviously not exact the same but its a similar style > >> of issue. Hosting organisations like amazon (I work for a hosting provider that > >> does cloud stuff and we deal with this) have to do licensing processes for > >> various other OSes so I wouldn't have thought it would be a major problem or > >> change of process for them. Max might be able to comment on that though. We > >> could put some simple guidelines in place that wouldn't have to be repeated for > >> each release so they basically agree not to modify etc and it would protect and > >> enforce the trademark. spot might be able to comment on the process and whether > >> something similar might be an appropriate compromise between the spins process > >> and nothing at all. > >> > > So I see these two things which may be what you're talking about: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Local_community_domains#Pre-purchased_domain > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Noncommercial_and_community_web_sites > > > > The first link seems to boil down to the Board will use a rapid process to > > verify that the trademark guidelines are being followed and then ask "Can > > the community set up this domain?" In most cases, it's expected the Board > > will answer "Yes". > > > > The second link could be applied to third parties producing images although > > it would need heavy adaptation. > > I never meant that they were suppose to be used straight up but rather > the principle/idea/procedures that is used for domains might apply > equally well as a procedure for approving 3rd party use of core > packages with modified images/config files etc. to ensure they meet > and understand the requirements of using Fedora and its associated > trademarks. > Sure. But what is the principle/idea/procedures that we're shooting for here? Be rapid in approval? I can agree with that (although our community domain approvals haven't always been speedy :-(. Have a written set of standards? We've so far failed in that, but it would be a good goal. Have the list of criteria be short? I could agree with that... what is the principle that you're trying to encompass here? > Might be interesting to see if Debian and other distros have policies > regarding this. > To my non-legal eyes, both Debian and the Linux trademark are much looser than what we have: http://www.debian.org/logos/ http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark/sublicense-agreement The Linux trademark licensing is operating on somewhat different goals than we are, though. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpMr9Adk4k7R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
