On 07/19/2016 11:13 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:15:24AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: >>> From a legal standpoint: a) does this make sense and b) what would we >>> need to do make it happen? >> If the idea is to have a new secondary mark - I would suggest >> discussing with the Red Hat legal team. If not, I'm not sure this is >> really a legal issue (other than in the sense of refining what >> 'Fedora' means). > > My preliminary questions are: a) do we _need_ a new secondary mark for > this, or is it something we can just declare without involving that; > and b) in either case, would we need to modify the existing trademark > guidelines or could this be an additive guideline? I think you either need to use the Fedora Remix mark or go through the process of creating a new secondary mark, because you're talking about distributing "things" that are marked in a way that implies that Fedora made them, even if they're not at the same supported level. I don't think its a problem to have Fedora people making Remixes. If you create a new secondary mark, the existing trademark guidelines would need to be amended to reflect it. ~tom == Red Hat _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
