2006/4/20, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx>: > On 4/20/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But what about when the Fedora Red Hat "ships" is an amalgum of some > > packages within the Universe (I hate this word)? Is it only a REAL > > Fedora when it comes out of Red Hat? > > Things reviewed and blessed by the Fedora Board get access to the more > restricted marks. As in a live-cd that the board reviews and blesses.. > gets access to the more restricted marks and don't need to claim > "based on". but can still claim "based on." A livecd thats been built > from Core+Extras sources but not reviewed/blessed by the board must > use "based on" and uses the less restricted mark. > > If Red Hat wants to ship an amalgum that doesn't get reviewed and > blessed by the Fedora Board... then no.. they dont get to use the more > restricted mark... neener neener neener. hi |jef| i think thats a pretty good idea of dealing with things in a fair way. but just a question... what if i add a single package that isnt yet in extras nor core... am i not allowed to call it "based on fedora" with only minor changes that are documented in a clean way? with having a distro that is 99,9% fedora (e.g. a live cd... e.g. with distcc...) wouldnt it be still based on fedora from a pure technical point of view? How would i be able to call that live cd then? regards, Rudolf Kastl > > -jef > > -- > 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
