Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
The guidelines were specifically designed so that someone could ship
stock Fedora and an additional repository of vendor packages, whether
it be Dell addons, Creative Commons content or whatever.
If those guidelines are followed, then, without actually changing the
guidelines, it doesn't really matter what that content/packages are.
That is indeed my implicit question. Do you still want vendors to ship
software not included in Fedora and still call it Fedora?
Nobody currently gets to call anything "Fedora" that isn't a very
specific set of bits that are originally and solely shipped by the
fedora project.
What they get to do, is take those bits as a whole, not modify them in
any way whatsoever, and bundle them with other software, with the
explicit restriction that-
"
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.
"
Is it ok for
anyone and everyone to do so with any set of software? Does the current
trademark guidelines match the goals of the project?
Honestly, what business is it of yours, how people distribute
*unmodified* copies of fedora? Sure I'd love to have a legal license
which states that any free software I write, cannot be used by
governments to support in any way whatsoever an institution which
engages in 'baiting' tactics that use entrapment as justification for
murder, but I'm a realist. Hopefully our software will save more babies
than it kills (or 'eats' is I suppose the parlance of choice...)
-dmc
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
