On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 06:05:05PM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> Em Quinta-feira 23 Setembro 2010, às 17:25:53, Jared K. Smith escreveu: >> > 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. >> >> The current compliance spec is trying to clarify this, to be as transparent >> as >> possible. >> >> The basic guideline is that you have to use the same packages as the MeeGo >> distribution (same names, same versions, differing only on patch-level and >> patches applied). You can recompile any packages. >> >> You cannot remove a core package, and that includes connman. > > Wonderful, then I suggest that all "spins" that happen to contain some > MeeGo components, not even mention the MeeGo name at all anywhere. > > Well, maybe not "anywhere", I still like this for the description of > Smeegol: > Smeegol, an openSUSE respin based on the spittle of MeeGo(tm). > > Is that what people here really want to see happen? If so, great, but > realize exactly what you are asking for here, and how heavy-handed it > is. >
In search of an example, I went to look at the openSUSE & Fedora trademark usage rules. I found the first one here: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Trademark_guidelines If I understand those rules correctly, you can only use the openSUSE mark tag lines (i.e. powered by openSUSE, based on openSUSE) if you are distributing _only_ binaries from the openSUSE project repositories (section: Distributing openSUSE With Project-Based Modifications). My read of section "Distributing openSUSE With All Other Modifications" is that you can't refer to openSUSE at all (not even with a tag line like "powered by openSUSE" or "based on openSUSE") if what you distribute includes any binaries that are not coming from the official openSUSE project repositories. Looking at the Fedora trademark rules (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines). they clearly state that downstream distributors _can not_ use the terms "powered by Fedora", "based on Fedora", "contains Fedora" - in Fedora's case it seems that even if you are only using unmodified binaries you still can't use any of these terms. But it does provide the use of "Fedora Remix" (and only that) for downstream distributors. Assuming that is correct, then the Meego compliance seems less heavy-handed than both the openSUSE and the Fedora compliance rules, where (in my understanding from this thread) you can add your own components that don't collide with core Meego components and muck with non-core components, and still call it Meego. What this thread boils down to is that other distros would like to be able to provide the look-and-feel of the Meego UX on top of their distros. While this is a neat idea and I think that ultimately would get Meego more mileage with user eyeballs (people would get used to Meego look-and-feel even when using other linux distros), it doesn't seem to be something that the holders of the Meego trademark are interested in pursuing. I think that until there is a desire to separate Meego-as-a-distro from Meego-as-a-UI notions, you're stuck with not making any mention of Meego. thanks, csd > thanks, > > greg k-h > _______________________________________________ > 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
