Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
(The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times
before...)
But technology and published legal guidelines change...
Not every other week in this context.
C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that
include
the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to
do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )
If this is done, it should be rebranded and not called Fedora.
'should' is one of those words...
By my reading of the current trademark guidelines (before they
disappeared from
http://rhold.fedoraproject.org/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/
it is totally possible (with a little initrd guru-dom) to repackage
the fedora-8-livecd iso (other isos too, but I'll use this as an
example), such that mp3 and rpmfusion(or other arbitrary repos) work
'out of the box'.
[unsnip]
Just make a new iso, that contains the old iso as is, with a new initrd
and bootloader, that present the user with two choices-
a) "boot the official unmodified fedora-8-live image"
or
b) "boot the official fedora-8-live image, patched with mp3 support and
software repository configuration that the fedora organization does not
support or condone in any way"
[/unsnip]
I believe you are incorrect in this reading given everything I heard on
this topic so far.
Rahul
Ok, thanks to MikeMC, I can defend my position from
http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html
"
Shipping Fedora™ code unmodified from the original download with
separate patches that may be applied by the end user at his/her
discretion is not a modification of the original code, provided:
1.
The original Fedora™ code is intact and identifiable at the time
of installation and on the media on which the code is delivered;
2.
The patches are provided independent of the original Fedora™ code
and are identifiable on the media on which the code is delivered;
3.
The end user is given the discretion as to whether to install the
patches; and
4.
Any marketing materials related to such a distribution make clear
that the vendor is providing patches which, if installed by the user,
will modify the Fedora™ code from its original form.
"
Please tell me how my above thoeretical repackaging of fedora does not
fall into this *very* explicitly permitted scenario.
-dmc
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
