On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 13:14, seth vidal wrote: > > As far as the trademarks go, Yellow Dog ships with all the > > redhat-config-* tools and I don't think that trademarks have ever been > > a problem. > > I'd really want a confirmed answer on this one. Just b/c something > "hasn't been a problem" doesn't mean it won't become a problem. I've sent an email to the legal department for some clarification. > > Just dropping the 'redhat' won't work because not all of the tools > > have '-config-' in the name such as redhat-logviewer and > > redhat-install-packages. Just replacing 'redhat' with 'fedora' > > doesn't really make sense if these tools are going to be used in RHEL > > and other distros like Yellow Dog. Just using 'rhc-*' still seems to > > carry a Red Hat connotation. > > > > I'd like to know what others think about this... > > I'm not sure what tack to take. I can definitely understand red hat (the > company) desire to advertise who wrote the program in the program name. > > I also understand that widespread use of these programs in other > distributions or even operating systems will be limited by their name. > It might not be rational or reasonable but a lot of people will be > resistant to using redhat-config-foo on debian or novell linux. Do you > think logrotate or chkconfig would have made it into debian if they were > redhat-rotate-logs and redhat-config-startup? For that matter would have > alternatives made it into red hat if it had been debian-alternatives? > > I'm not certain it would have. Why don't the redhat-config-foo packages > get names like anaconda or chkconfig or logrotate, with just symlinks in > the packages to the binary names: > > so then you could have fedora-config-foo for the tab-completing lookup > and for general user issues - but have that come as > foostuff-1.1-1.noarch.rpm :) > > maybe that doesn't work, maybe it does. >From my perspective, I really like having the common namespace for the RPMS themselves. When I'm building packages, it's much quicker to throw redhat-config* at the build system than ten individual package names. What about fc-config-*? The 'fc' stands for Fedora Core, but maybe it's generic enough for other distros to adopt if they want to? On the other hand, maybe 'fedora-config' could work for other distros because "Fedora" is the name of the Fedora project, whereas "Fedora Core" is just the name of the distribution part of Fedora. Having 'fedora-config' would simply imply that this tool was created as part of the Fedora project. Opinions? Cheers, Brent