-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 02:11:23PM -0600, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote: > > >> *) How far could we (if we walk down this path, anyway) modify >> the default Fedora installation to better fit customers? >> (installing some Extras packages and maybe >> Flash/RealPlayer/mPlayer/Xine; 32-bit apps for backwards >> compatibility on 64-bit Linux boxes) > > > If you modify it, you can't call it Fedora. But you can modify it > all you want. However, as not-a-lawyer, just adding things probably > doesn't fall under that. The details hare here: > <http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/> > > You're definitely going to want to consult a lawyer. Preferably one > familiar with open source. > > Watch out for the licenses and other legal issues with those > "maybe" apps. > > And x86_64 already does include 32-bit backwards-compatibility > stuff. > Yes it does, just not for plugins stuff like Flash, Java and even RealPlayer. I had to install either Firefox/Netscape/Mozilla 32-bit to be able to install Flash. Plus when I installed FC4 x86_64 I had to expressely state I wanted the 32-bit compatibility libs and programs. > >> *) As far as Look'n'Feel go, would there be problems if the >> default desktop settings are changed a bit (theme, icon set, >> color schemes)? > > > Same. > >> *) Even though Fedora does not ship with them, could we be able >> to deliver the built systems with all necesary drivers, provided >> a warning in the manual that stated the drivers are not part of >> the distro DVD the customers will get, with instructions on how >> to get them and install them? > > > The trademark guidelines would apply again. But also, it would > depend on the licensing terms of the drivers, too. > > Guess, Fedora is best suited for individual use only... As going through all the restrictions, and balancing what most users expect to find in their comptuers, it'd deffinitely be hard to market such computers. Despite the computer's raw power. As I said earlier, what worries me the most is the hardware part, as I can leave the system to a default (kickstart) installation, letting users configure their users, change root's password, etc., but (and I would too) users expect the hardware they buy a new system with to flawlessly work with the OS the system shipped. This is what leaves me worried. As these are the rough specs we thought of the systems: Proc AMD64 based (2800+ onwards) Mem 1Gb (PC 333 or 400 depending on price) HDD 160 S-ATA HDD (with at least 6 partitions, 5 for system, 1 for storage) DVD-RW/RAM optic unit CD-RW 52-32-52 optic unit Graphics: 1) nVidia based graphics solutions <- This right here is an issue in itself! Though they've got the best support and best performing drivers around. 2) S3 based graphics, using OpenSource Drivers. Best suited for Desktop system, with limited garphics use (i.e, not for gaming or the like) Sound: EMU10K1 Audigy2 Value class cards or VIA 8235/8237 class cards (as these two types have native ALSA hardware mixing capabilities) The rest of the hardware is pretty much standard (USB keyboard, mice and 17" LCD monitor) Of the above (assuming no changes to Fedora installation), obviously the hardware is an issue. We want to offer some lean 'n mean hardware, but without the drivers to operate it... I guess they won't go too far. We've thought of a few ways to walk around this issue, like if we just leave Fedora be and go for another distro (we wouldn't want to do that, though) or offer the drivers as a separate disk with installation instructions, and probably those packages we would have had added to the system... BUT this could also in itself be an issue if in anyway there's a restriction to do this as well. I'm going through the licenses of Flash, RealPlayer and the nVidia (and ATi) drivers as well... I didn't expect this to be easy... Just to clarify: Even changing default theme (to another GPL'ed one) would cause an issue with the trademark? Even if the theme COMES with Fedora in a default installation? PS: I really wouldn't want to relegate Fedora systems to "compatibility-value" boxes, as I know how good the system can really be. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDihsaXM+XOp70dwoRAjkBAJ0c9h38w8po1chstKh/HkKh0zZwDQCdH/J1 Knk1rWGzy98FQabyYoivfRc= =8qVc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
