I know it hasn't even been a day, but no one commented on my post. I tend to be "long winded" so I'll cut my own message down in the hope people will read it. I basically wanted to point out that we should be addressing the real _legal_ issues at the Anaconda tools themselves. If you make it easy for people to change the logos with standard disclaimers right in the installer, people _will_ do it. Just a suggestion ... "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > ... > A. Custom Fedora(TM) ... (FC+FE) > B. Unofficial Fedora(TM) Third Party ... (FC+FE+100%RedistRPMs) > C. No-name Redistribution ... (any other RPMS, with FC+FE) > ... > iii) "Click-through" Anaconda tools > I think the way to solve this is in the Anaconda tools themselves. > When you run any Anaconda tools, you have to create an _explicit_ > configuration file that states whether it's A, B or C. If it > doesn't exist, Anaconda spits out a complaint to create one, or > run a script that creates the settings file for them (prompts them > for a few questions). > IANAL, but from a legal perspective, if you give someone a tool > that notifies them with a click through or they have to run an > explicit command, and they _still_ use the trademark _incorrectly_ > -- I'd say you've got them by the balls. They have no excuse or > ignorance argument. But IANAL. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- I'm a Democrat. No wait, I'm a Republican. Hmm, it seems I'm just whatever someone disagrees with. -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
