On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 21:31 +0100, Andre Nogueira wrote: > Hi, > > I think people are mixing several things, hence the confusion... > > When talking about a "Fedora-based distro", there are actual three > possible things: > > 1) A distro which uses ONLY packages which are in Fedora's repository > (including Extras) > > 2) A distro which uses packages which are NOT in Fedora's repositories > (not even Extras), but all the packages it uses are free (as in > speech). > > 3) Same as 2), but uses proprietary packages (Macromedia Flash, > Acrobat Reader, MP3 codec, etc). > > I believe everyone agrees that 1) is a Fedora-based distro, and that > 3) could never be accepted because it uses proprietary software. > As such, we only have to discuss 2). > I don't agree:: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=based based adj 1: being derived from (usually followed by `on' or `upon'); "a film based on a best-selling novel" So in this sense, all of your examples are "based on Fedora". It seems that Jesse's clarifications are what's important here. Any distribution can say it is "based on Fedora" in its documentation, website, etc. They are restricted in their ability to use the Fedora Logos as part of their logo and Fedora *in their name*. As far as I can see, Max's proposal is how to relax these restrictions for distributions which consist entirely of Fedora Software (currently FC + FE; your #1 above) Keeping this in mind, I think "based on Fedora" is a point of confusion to those who would want to use "Based on Fedora" as part of their distro which contain packages from outside FC + FE. "Fedora KDExcellent" is a very close association with Fedora. It would be neat if projects similar to KUbuntu or EdUbuntu grew up in this namespace. The question would be, do you let this happen by giving everyone the ability to spin their one-off distributions as "Fedora Foo" and seeing which ones flourish? Or do you wait for one to flourish and then see if the project would like to be officially blessed with the "Fedora" cognomen? (Personally, I don't see this second approach working. Imagine that CentOS were based on Fedora instead of RHEL. Do you think they'd change their name to Fedora CentOS if we said that they'd proven their worth and we'd like to let them use it?) "KDExcellent, a Fedora Distribution" is a safe middle ground. It's a much closer association than "based on Fedora". But it implies that there are many separate Fedora Distributions and this one is no more canonical than them. It also puts "Fedora Core" on a separate level from these distributions. Personally I'd like to see the "Fedora KDExcellent" form. This puts people who want to form separate groupings of packages on an equal footing name-wise with "Fedora Core" which is a good thing for the community. "Fedora Foo Linux" is a name. "Foo, a Fedora Distribution" is a name and a description. It's much easier for a distribution to drop a description than to change a name if they are weighing the costs of being lazy and rush packaging their own versions of packages rather than getting them into Fedora Extras or working to maintain/fix the Fedora packages for everyone. -Toshio
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
