> 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. #001 For the second one, we can propose a different fedora-logos-XXX.rpm. Thus as it's said here http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html there wont corruption for mere deletion of certain files. If we don't propose another fedora-logos-XXX.rpm, guidelines will be enough. #002 Last time, for Kadischi I came up with some Legal stuffs due to some requests on the matter. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal Its contents are what we are proposing for the moment. #003 To my guess, these are some areas of thoughts we must be working on for branding: *built from - Fedora Core, Extras Packages only - Fedora Core, Extras Packages with own packages which are abiding Fedora Policies. ---> ask to push to Extras - Fedora Core, Extras Packages with propriety softwares ---> I know Livna is not officially supported. but at least we might as them to push their propriety packages over there. But still it's against Fedora Policy. - from sources provided by fedora *Derived From Fedora * a fork of Fedora #004, would there be special marks for product of livecd tool (kadischi) provided by the Fedora Project? If yes, I should work on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal as well. Chitlesh -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
