Hi Jared, I am confirming that we were contacted by RH and you were cc-ed on the emails. We agreed on the wording of your spin (which is inline with the trademark policy and guidelines [1]), and approval was given conditional to meeting the compliance requirements.
As for the remark on connman, my personal thoughts on this are the following: MeeGo compliance is stack based meaning you need to use MeeGo Core as-is - you need to use same base code, same package format, same package naming/versionning, etc. You can apply patches against components in the MeeGo Core stack and you can add new components but not to replace existing MeeGo components. This is my understanding and to relate this to your remarks below, if you were to remove connman (or for that purpose any component declared as part of MeeGo Core stack) and replace it with another component, you would not be Core stack compliant and therefore can't use MeeGo mark as part of your product name or branding. Compliance is work in progress - please participate in the compliance discussion thread to help shape the compliance efforts and please refer to http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance for details and roadmap information. Best regards, Ibrahim Haddad [1] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/linux-foundation-trademark-usage-guidelines On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Jared K. Smith <[email protected]>wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > > {sigh} This isn't the first time I've heard this type of thing > > happening, and again, it's totally not acceptable. > > > > I'll keep following up on this... > > I agree with you, Greg. This isn't what I expected. > > As Peter explained, we (the Fedora community) went to all the trouble > of working through the Linux Foundation attorneys to agree on wording > for our spin (which we had hoped to call the "MeeGo Spin by Fedora"). > Once we got the LF attorneys to sign off on the naming, we were > contacted by the MeeGo folks saying "You're going to be compliant, > right?" to which I replied "Of course... it is our intention to be > compliant or not use the MeeGo trademarks." I asked for the > documentation on what being compliant meant, and was given a link that > contained no details. It was only later in the conversation that the > MeeGo folks said "Then you're going to use connman, right?" > > As I read it, the latest "compliance" draft documentation says nothing > about connman, but if that's really going to be a solid requirement > for compliance, Fedora will most likely go the route of rebranding our > spin so as not to use the MeeGo trademarks or artwork. It's very > unfortunate that things couldn't have been spelled out in a more > transparent and self-consistent manner. It certainly would have saved > a lot of time and effort. > > -- > Jared Smith > Fedora Project Leader > _______________________________________________ > 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
