On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 20:03 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote: > 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? Due to trademark dilution, I can't see any way a derivative product that is less than 100% Fedora-derived could use the marks at all. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
