On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:06:04AM -0500, Ibrahim Haddad wrote: > > 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. > > BUT THERE ARE NO FINAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS AT THIS TIME!!! >
Sorry, I did not mean to tick you off ;) > That's the problem, even if you are wanting to work through this whole > thing, distros are wanting to ship stuff NOW. To hold things up, > waiting for some document/requirement that isn't even finished is > ludicrous. > While the formal compliance specs & tests are being constructed (target availability is 10/2010), trademark usage for MeeGo is based on a written statement from the submitter stating that the device or software stack is built using the MeeGo core stack (as mentioned in the previous email exchange). > > 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. > > Why not? What's the problem with this? > > > 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. > > Why not? There is nothing that makes any userspace application depend > on ConnMan that I can see. Actually, I can see lots of reasons to NOT > use ConnMan (reduced functionality being the biggest one.) > > This is not ConnMan specific. ConnMan happens to be the example here and you may be right that maybe there are no userspace applications that depend on it. But there may be dependencies on other components in MeeGo core. So as it is stack based compliance, you need to use it as-is and not replace existing components with others. Of course, you can exchange components as you please but at the expense of not calling the end result MeeGo. > > 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. > > That's great, but again, distros wanting to ship today shouldn't be held > hostage to this process. Especially as MeeGo 1.0 shipped so long ago. > > These are handled on a case by case where a distro would submit a written statement confirming that they are using MeeGo core as-is (as previously mentioned). Once compliance specs & tests are available end of next month, the process will be much clearer and more automated. Thank you, Ibrahim > thanks, > > greg k-h >
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
