On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
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.
So who gets to use the "second" mark? And how is this any different from
a parallel question: how does Fedora "bless" some websites, for example,
with the official mark, but not others.
Greg and I had an interesting conversation with some of our lawyers not
too long ago in which we went to them with the idea of having two marks --
one "official" mark that was strongly protected, and a second mark that
was more open and permissive in its terms.
What we heard back was a fairly compelling argument for why it's better to
just have *one* mark that we maintain guidelines around. That's *the*
mark for Fedora, and things that use that mark have the blessing of the
Board. The value in monitoring and protecting a second mark was pretty
questionable.
Greg -- can you chime in a bit here? I don't feel like I'm summarizing
that particular conversation very well, and maybe this thread will give us
cause to revisit it.
--
Max Spevack
+ gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/~mspevack/mspevack.asc
+ fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
