On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:18:58PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: >> 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. > > Thanks Tom. I'll start exploring that, then, because I definitely want > something "closer" than Remix implies. Particularly, I'd like to keep > some of the guarantees that Remix does not provide, like "100% free and > open source software that is legally redistributable everywhere in the > world". It also might apply to services, or maybe even things which > contain _zero_ traditional-official-Fedora software, both of which I > think would be straining the idea of "Remix". Most people wouldn't create another secondary mark for that. They'd come up with a name for the project and simply slap "Beta" at the end of it. It's a pretty typical convention at this point, and people are likely to be less confused than having 3 "official" Fedora marks that all mean different things. Particularly if the two "secondary" marks have any overlap. josh _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
