comments inline highlighted in blue. On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Wafaa <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 15:00 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > The compliance program is driven by setting the compliance specs > (discussed > > > on meego-dev):,*http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance > > > > But that referrs to MeeGo 1.1, what about shipping something that > > matches 1.0? Like what Andrew has up and running? > > > > And even then, that's just a "draft" proposal, right? How can you > > "certify" to a draft at this point in time? > Hi Greg, While the formal compliance specs and tests are being constructed - trademark usage for MeeGo 1.0 is based on a written statement from the submitter to the Linux Foundation stating that the product (device or software stack) is built using the MeeGo 1.0 core stack following the spirit of the guidelines provided on the wiki http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance. > > > > > So basically, if someone/company wants to use the name MeeGo as part of > > > their product name, they need to respect: > > > 1- trademark guidelines - published at > > > > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/linux-foundation-trademark-usage-guidelines > > > > That's fine, trademark law is great, and my original proposal meets > > those rules, right? > > > > > 2- MeeGo compliance guidelines or specs (ongoing project - status can > be > > > tracked at: http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance) > > > > As nothing is final, this can not be required at this point in time. So > > my original wording should still be fine, especially as the project is > > "based on" and not stating that it is compliant in any way, nor using > > any trademarked artwork or branding that you are trying to hold out for > > only "compliant" releases. > > > > Of course, the big joke is that there is no "compliant" releases yet as > > there is no spec, so we'll just ignore the shipping MeeGo distros from > > different companies at the moment :) > > > > So finally, does the Linux Foundation have any objection to the use of > > the following terminology: > > > > Smeegol, an openSUSE release based on the netbook user interface > > that came from the Meego(TM)* project. > > > > * Meego is a trademark of the Linux Foundation. > > > > And if there are objections, how should it be rephrased? > > > > Remember, you want "respins" like this, don't start squashing them... > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > Many thanks Greg for the legalise. Providing the Linux Foundation has > no objections, I would like to use that. > Hi Andrew, I will get back to you with a confirmation about the name. > > My next question is that of artwork. Looking at the link provided I > don't see anything about artwork usage. From what I can tell, there is > the icon-theme package which refers to the Compliance section for usage, > is it the only package containing restricted artwork? So does that mean > I can't use icon-theme, and have to use one of the other themes provided > by openSUSE (Tango for instance)? > > What can I use, and what can I explicitly not use? If it helps anyone > wishing to answer these questions I am more than happy for you to see > for yourselves by trying out the Alpha of Smeegol ;-) > > This is the only information I am aware in relation to artwork and style guide for MeeGo http://wiki.meego.com/MeeGo_Style_Guide. > Regards, > > Andy > -- > Andrew Wafaa > IRC: FunkyPenguin. > GPG: 0x3A36312F > openSUSE: Get It, Discover It, Create It at http://www.opensuse.org >
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
