On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 14:14, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 20:58, Brent Fox wrote: > > 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. > > > > Ok, here's the word from the legal department: > > > > "Red Hat never asked anyone to change the package names in the manner > > that we tell them that they cannot redistribute RED HAT LINUX under the > > RED HAT brand name without a written agreement with Red Hat. At the > > same time, we recognize the confusion this may cause, and Red Hat will > > endeavor to amend package names to remove the "redhat" reference as new > > releases permit." > > > > > > So it was bad practice for us to put the 'redhat' name into the package > > names in the first place. I am asking for clarification about > > 'fedora'. It is possible that the same trademark problems that exist > > with the 'redhat' name will exist for 'fedora' as well. > > > > At the moment, I'm leaning toward Andre's suggestion of "system-config" > > Give me system-config-foo over fedora-config-foo any day. > "system-config" is so painfully obvious once you see it it's hard to > figure how the heck that wasn't thought/used in the first place :) The followup from legal is that 'fedora' has the same problems, but something like 'fc' is ok. Personally, I'm not sure that the meaning of 'fc' is at all clear to a novice user. If there are no major objections, I propose that we use the 'system-config-' naming convention. It avoids the trademark issue entirely and is generic enough that other distros could use the tools without any political concerns. Cheers, Brent