As the usage guidelines stand *right now*, you *cannot* use the Fedora
name if you alter the bits *in any way*.
This has been the policy since Fedora was first created -- largely because
no one had the time to deal with questions like the ones you're raising
right now.
I'm trying to push for a "based on Fedora" policy, which would allow
resellers/LUGs/whomever to get some value from the Fedora name without
exposing Fedora to liability. But there's no policy of this kind in place
yet, and it involves hand-to-hand combat with lawyers, so I make no
promises about this policy appearing any time soon.
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________
Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have
Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the
Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the
] [ dumb. --mcluhan
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
> I really appreciate your comments guys, even though I may sound like a
> stubborn nonsensical guy at times, I'm trying my best to get this right.
>
> Thus far I've gone through the nVidia and Flash licenses, they allow
> redistribution as long as the binary part of the packages is not changed
> (in the case of Flash, that's the package in itself and in the case of
> nVidia's driver, that's the X aspect of the package, as the kernel-side
> portion may require patches to get it built). In any case, both allow
> redistribution. I took a look at how other vendors are putting systems
> together, in particular HP workstations with some or another flavor of
> RHEL installed. We're not planning going with RHEL for a number or
> reasons (and thats not necesarily related to support subscriptions, more
> on that bellow). What I learned of how HP distributes their Workstations
> is by asking their users to log into their website to finish
> configuration of the Workstation (most likely to allow for third party
> software to be installed and properly acknowledge the users). So that
> there could be sort of a solution to our problem (details on this
> project and projected scope, etc, in a bit). Many of the extra packages
> we want to include are actually part of Fedora Extras, but that got out
> of Core (for some obvious and some not so obvious reasons), but which we
> consider could be considered as pluses, especially for our targetted
> audiences.
>
> The most spikey issue is of course that of Multimedia (as I have
> mentioned before), as people currenly expect to be able to have some
> sort of multimedia capabilities... Still while not directly providing
> the packages, would proper documentation on how to install them, plus
> disclaimers that if the user so chooses to install, say a DVD player,
> even though the validity of libdvdcss in Linux is doubtious (at the very
> least), the Fedora Foundation, the Fedora Project and ourselves (system
> builders) cannot be held responsible for the use given to such
> applications and tools, are not liable to responsibility from legal
> issues of any kind derived from the use there of? Sorry if my question
> is a bit confusing, but what I mean is that if we warn the users, even
> though providing the info on how to install such applications, but not
> directly providing the applications per se, and stating that any
> problems derived from the use of such apps, is the sole responsibility
> of the user and the user alone, would that still be a violation to the
> guidelines of Fedora Foundation and trademark use?
>
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> >
> >> 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:
> >>
> > Like you have mentioned Kickstart has all sort of hooks for OEM to use
> > so the infrastructure to do more than individual deployments is
> > certainly there along with GFS, Xen and so on. Jesse Keating did a
> > presentation on Fedora for OEM distributions in FUDCon1 which you
> > might want to read
> > http://fedoraproject.org/fudcon/FUDCon1/
>
> Thanks a lot, Rahul. I'll certainly take a look at it! Certainly
> Kickstart would be the way to go, plus taking advantage of the
> capability of Anaconda to install extra disks from the first boot
> interface. Whether the user decides or not to use the "extras" disk,
> would be up to him/her, and as such the Fedora intallation would be
> safeguarded that way, because up until that point, the installation will
> be a pristine Fedora default.
>
> >
> >> 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...
> >>
> >>
> > I cannot offer legal advise but here are some of my personal opinions.
> > Regardless of any distribution you use, you would have similar
> > trademark guidelines in place to prevent confusion. As long as you
> > dont modify Fedora in anyway and simple redistribute it with the
> > additional packages clearly indicated as such the trademark guidelines
> > should not affect you. Do a license audit of the add on packages and
> > if the licenses allow redistribution without a EULA (Interactive
> > installations is against the design goals of RPM) you can integrate
> > them within a repository and have a post installation hook to pull in
> > packages from a OEM repository or design a custom application say in
> > GTK+ that has a druid or even a simple shell script and zenity (part
> > of GNOME-utils) with fallbacks. The application would have the EULAs
> > which the user can agree to before getting the necessary packages
> > which can be launched on first login for the system
> > administrator/user. As long as you make it clear that this application
> > and whatever packages it uses is not part of Fedora this seems to be a
> > clean solution to me.
>
> Well, just to round up a bit more what I said earlier. When looking at
> how HP configures their Workstations, a similar idea could be done here.
> Either require the user to visit certain webiste to gather additional
> information on how to set up their systems, or tell them up front in the
> documentation with a very visible, nice looking, EASY TO FOLLOW(1)
> installation guide and first steps with the new system, so that they
> understand that up to that point during first boot system setup, the
> system is a clean Fedora default installation, and what follows is our
> post-configuration to get all the additional programs and device drivers
> in place for intended system use (as advertised by us). The tricky part
> will be to have good Fedora advertising and still provide some extra
> functionality that will (hopefully) make users buy more systems from us.
> This blance between our intention to be true to Fedora, and yet have
> some value added to systems built by us, will be the REAL challenge.
> Especially to avoid striding too much away from a Fedora's default
> installation.
>
> >
> >> 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?
> >>
> >>
> > All of the Free and open source software licenses allow you to copy,
> > modify and redistribute software licensed under them. Thats however
> > orthogonal to the trademark guidelines.
> >
> > http://www.redhat.com/magazine/007may05/
> >
> I'll take a look at that issue of Red Hat Mag. Anyway, I believe that
> the easiest way will be to have default settings an leave the users
> decide what they want... We like the clearlooks olive theme better...
> (though I have to admit I like it a lot too when combined clearlooks
> window border with Bluecurve Strawberry or Orange GTK colors)
>
> > Legal like security is a field where it pays to be paranoidal. So we
> > have to assume worst case scenarios. If suppose the trademark
> > protection guidelines allow the OEM to change the theme and if they
> > switch the distribution to use one of the al1y GPL'ed theme included
> > in Fedora as the default, that would be aesthetically non appealing
> > even while serving the functionality it is designed for, leaving users
> > of this modified distribution leaving a bad impression on what Fedora
> > is. So thats potentially a scenario that the guidelines are meant to
> > avoid. The alternative would be to get special exceptions which is a
> > hassle.
>
> Yes, and because I know that is taht I'm trying to figure out what would
> be the best way to balance user requests with what can be provided with
> our systems, and having this wonderful distribution as the core of it all
>
> >
> >
> > I would like to hear your plans with more details. How many systems
> > are you planning to redistribute Fedora?, market segment, timeframe etc.
> >
> > regards
> > Rahul
>
> The whole plan for the Fedora based computers is like this:
>
> It all started when one of my best friends asked me to insall Linux on
> his PC and he became immediately hooked, switched in a matter of days...
>
> According to what we have gathered thus far, there is a potential market
> in Mexico, quite big. Since we are a poor nation, and given the fact
> that usually computer hardware down here runs for at least twice as much
> as in the US, a cheapper alternative is needed. Not only that, but the
> systems sold by some of the big names in the industry can run for
> several thousand dollars for a top of the line system, while a mid-range
> system can still be quite pricey, we're talking that a Windows Media
> Center computer by HP can easily run for as much as $3500 USD. Mid-range
> and entry-level PCs while cheapper, usually lack a lot in the hardware
> department and even when they may have powerful components like
> processors and the like, usually the system is lacking in memory (like a
> P4 2.8 GHz with 256 Mb RAM with Windows XP on it) and are usually quite
> bloated in the software department (especially start up programs).
>
> So we started to think of ways to get better hardware at lower prices,
> and since we both use Linux we thought that it could only be natural to
> use Linux. But we've also identified some necessities from the users
> with whom we have most contact, like the need for really simple and to
> the point applications (we know Linux distros usually have plenty of
> those), easy enough to use interface and updates system (who can beat
> yum, anyway?!), etc. However, there is an increasing necessity for
> multimedia compliance, and here are the spikes. Because during the
> second half of the nineties, when multimedia systems bloomed, also
> bloomed the mp3 audio format, and very quickly the people started to
> compress all their CD libraries into their computers usin mp3... And
> when the world learnt that the format was not free and a license was
> required, that ruled out many Linux systems. At any rate, a lot of
> people has asked us if they'd be able to transfer their existin library
> into Linux, hence the need for a media player capable of playing mp3
> (and for some, wma, too).
>
> The DVD issue is not as a big deal as the mp3 thing is, becuase a lot of
> people simply have a home DVD to watch their movies on, so they don't
> actually care about a DVD player, but they DO care about web and
> streaming video content... Another problem as the most widely used
> formats aren't free either, Microsoft's Windows Media Video and AVIs are
> quite common place on websites, not to mention other proprietary formats
> like Real Video and QuickTime. Was because of these "needs" that we
> decided that maybe including a media player like mplyaer, VLC or Xine
> could be a good idea, but when looked from above, it actually doesn't...
> Even though simply not providing a means to play this content could be a
> nay-say for many users.
>
> Another issue we found that users were constatntly telling us, has got
> to do with security, virii and all those exploits of which Windows has
> been subject of as of late. Fortunately Linux is inherently safer than
> Windows, anyway, the real reason for that is that with all the spyware
> that some Windows computers mange to get, the performance of a computer
> starts to deteriorate to ridiculous point, so people have actualy asked
> us about "durability" of a Linux system, said another way "How much time
> until it start crawling instead of running". We believe Linux can help
> us there too.
>
> So having this in mind and the fact that especially computer
> enthusiastic users have approached us becuase we are asidous Linux
> users, made us believe that we could sell what is still considered to be
> a higher-end system for quite a reasonable price, with support and a
> Free operating system installed.
>
> So initially we'll try to sell the systems to computer savvy users, but
> the ultimate goal is to try and address as much as we can the needs of
> those "less literate" users. Having the hardware and the software in
> place is not all there is to it. Just like Apple did in late nineties,
> we believe that Linux should be sold "in style". That's why we set the
> hardware standards for our intended systems a bit too high and yet
> affordable. The sum of the parts of the hardware for a system like the
> one of my last post (and dpending on the graphics card the system has)
> can run for as much as $1200 USD (sacrificing in the graphics dept.,
> with say a GeForce 6600 plain). Still a very imprssive system, yet quite
> affordable, as 1200 bucks is usually what an entry-level (with mid-range
> specs) costs. Of course there are systems for as low as 500 dollars, but
> they're too tight in hardware. The intention is to make the systems last
> (in the hardware dept., at least) for some at least 5 years.
>
> For us profits would be in support and hardware sells... If we get a
> critical mass big enough, should be enough for the business to maintain
> itself.
>
> However (and I did read about this in the guidelines), we'd have to
> figure out an advetisement campaing that not only puts Fedora on the
> radar of buyers, but also would not be in contraposition with said
> guidelines to not be misleading and stuff... and being this especially
> true if promoted as a gaming rig (for instance) with the waves of
> comercial games that have announced Linux support and all, as
> fundamental hardware support (in this case graphics) is not part of the
> distribution. Other market segment we'll try to get into is the small
> to medium office desktop, as we've had some possitive feedback in this
> regard. Corporate scale is not part of our scope, at least not yet. And
> for these systems, while still keeping much of the fancyness of the
> hardware, we've agreed not to soup up the graphics hardware, as such
> embedded Chrome chips are ideal in this scenario, as they even have
> kernel-level DRM drivers nowadays, so even graphics 3D accelartion is
> possible (if not as fast and fancy as with the "higher"-end systems we
> are planning.
>
> As I said before, multimedia is a quite a big deal, even in an office
> environment, where the users may have setup a VoIP prgram, and they'd
> still want to be able to listen to their radio stations or music
> libraries, that's why we've also payed special attention to audio
> hardware, and deal with that which we know will be able to offer
> customers that without worrying about if they could dmix Skype or
> TeamSpeak while they're listeningto music, playing their games, watching
> videos or whatever. Right now we have very narrow options for this
> hardware mixing requirement (as I said my previous e-mail), and though
> there are more options, we've been unable to find (here) hardware based
> on other chips which are known to have good ALSA hardware mixing
> support (like Trident's 4D Wave, besides the ones mentioned)
>
> So pretty much these are as many details as we have right now... We are
> working our hearts out to research more about this legal mumbo-jumbo. We
> plan on developing these plans in the upcoming 6 months. The goal is to
> try and see how many systems are we able to get people interested on...
> I just hope we could find a balance between "cool" factor and legal
> compliance.
>
> So I guess that during the next 6 months our milestone will be set at
> approximately 1000 systems (conservative figures, I know).
>
> (1) I've actually seen people render simple things into quite
> complicated matters.
>
> --
> Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
> Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
>
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
