On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:07:33 +0000, Paul Nasrat <pnasrat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So we'd be shipping unmodified Fedora Core, Updates and Extras as a > work. Which is still identifiable as Fedora. So I don't think we fall > into the "seperate patches" category. unless of course you are talking about making changes to the installer image to make the installer process aware of an expanded package set. And there is the question of whether or not any installable mediaset can be considered 'unmodified' in the sense that the md5sums that make media-check work would change. Is it just the packages.. or is the installer image itself covered by the 'unmodified' language. Its far different to shove this all into a replacement installable image cd... than to gather packages to gether on a seperate cd. Even then on a seperate cd... are you allowed to generate repo metadata that differs from the original network repository? If you have a subset of packages the metadata will need to be regenerated. In either case whether its allowed or not, I don't see it as clearly delineated enough in the guidelines. I would much rather see the trademark guidelines rewritten to give some very specific guidance for the most commonly expected usage case.... instead of being written for lawyers to read. Exactly in what ways is a replacement set of installable media allowed to deviate from the original set? Can I include an Extras directory tree? Can I generate repo metadata for the Extras tree? Can I re-work the comps file to include more packages and groups? None of these questions are actually spelled out and they need to be. -jef
