Hello Carsten,

Thanks much for the post.  Sorry for late response as I was on travel.

MeeGo is a trademark owned by the Linux Foundation. Like any other
trademark, it requires permission for anyone wanting to use it as part of a
product (commercial or hobbyist or etc.). Otherwise if anyone can call
whatever they want MeeGo, the mark will lose its value and becomes useless.

If the product (device, software, distro, etc) is to use the name MeeGo,
they need to get permission. Permission will be granted based on being
compliant with a certain rules or compliance specs and verified using test
suites.

This topic is actually on the agenda of the next TSG meeting [1]. So please
attend as this topic will be discussed there, which is the perfect place to
ask the question.

PS:
One of the ideas we've been entertain is a MeeGo Compliance FAQ that answers
random questions. I think once we have a compliance program this will be
inevitable.

Thanks,
Ibrahim

[1] http://wiki.meego.com/Technical_Steering_Group_meetings
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Carsten Munk <[email protected]> wrote:

> So, I got a question by someone making a hardware adaptation of MeeGo
> for hobbyist purposes, not for publishing with an actual device. A
> project existing outside the current MeeGo.com project so to say.
>
> Is those hardware adaptations, if fully based on RPMs and .ks'es from
> repo.meego.com considered able to call themselves "MeeGo for X
> device"?
>
> Or what's the best way? "Unofficial MeeGo hardware adaptation for X"?
> Or are people supposed to use totally different naming and a different
> theming packages?
>
> Parallels can be drawn to for example derivative distributions of
> Debian not being able to call themselves Debian <something>.
>
> Asking these questions because it's better to have that conversation
> early* than when someone makes a successful derivative users like and
> project asks them to switch name :)
>
> Best regards,
> Carsten Munk
>
> * I'm hoping to see more compliance information on the next TSG
> meeting but so far compliance seems to have been around devices
> getting sold with MeeGo and not this scenario.
> _______________________________________________
> MeeGo-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
>
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev

Reply via email to