On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 13:37 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > The problem I see is we need the trademark ducks in a row before > we can do much of this, as it was a barrier to Extras CDs in the past. > Perhaps I'm missing something important that changed this. This is something GregDek and I are working on. This has to be nailed down as well before we start allowing OEM pre-installs of Fedora with any kind of modification. One of the aspects of this is can we legally call something Fedora if it includes bits from Core and Extras. [snip] > > > One more thing: What about "Fedora Commons" instead of "Fedora Extras"? I > > realize that it then overloads the FC acronym, but "Extras" seems wrong to > > me now, especially since we're going to be relying so much upon Extras > > over time. > > Contrib! *ducks* > > Would Commons get confused with a patent commons? > So nobody said anything about my suggestion, Fedora Linux which is a combo of Core and Extras components. Targetted rolls can insert the target name between, Fedora Office Linux, Fedora Server Linux, etc... Is there a reason we can't use the term Linux in the name? -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
