From rakesh at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 21 19:04:25 2008 From: rakesh at fedoraproject.org (Rakesh Pandit) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:34:25 +0530 Subject: packaging zimbra Message-ID: Hello list, I am Fedora Package Maintainer and really interested in getting zimbra into official fedora repository. It would be great if we (interested folks here) get together and get it done ASAP. Thanks & Cheers!! -- Rakesh Pandit From gdk at redhat.com Mon Jul 21 19:07:27 2008 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg Dekoenigsberg) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Rakesh Pandit wrote: > Hello list, > > I am Fedora Package Maintainer and really interested in getting zimbra > into official fedora repository. It would be great if we (interested > folks here) get together and get it done ASAP. Great. Are you in touch with any of the folks from Zimbra? Or will you be tackling the packaging by yourself? --g From rakesh.pandit at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 19:25:31 2008 From: rakesh.pandit at gmail.com (Rakesh Pandit) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:55:31 +0530 Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2008/7/22 Greg Dekoenigsberg : > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Rakesh Pandit wrote: > >> Hello list, >> >> I am Fedora Package Maintainer and really interested in getting zimbra >> into official fedora repository. It would be great if we (interested folks >> here) get together and get it done ASAP. > > Great. Are you in touch with any of the folks from Zimbra? Or will you be > tackling the packaging by yourself? > i am ready to take it on my own :-) But, it would be great if I can find some zimbra folks around, that would be very much ++ or even anyone who would is ready to get together with me. -- Regards, Rakesh Pandit From lee.faus at alfresco.com Mon Jul 21 19:40:01 2008 From: lee.faus at alfresco.com (Lee Faus) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:40:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7375870.1151216669329230.JavaMail.lfaus@lee-imac.local> Rakesh, You might want to start by looking at dependencies. We have started one for Alfresco: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Alfresco. This way we can determine overlaps so we don't duplicate efforts. Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rakesh Pandit" To: "Greg Dekoenigsberg" Cc: fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com, "Jeroen van Meeuwen (Fedora Project)" Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:25:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: packaging zimbra 2008/7/22 Greg Dekoenigsberg : > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Rakesh Pandit wrote: > >> Hello list, >> >> I am Fedora Package Maintainer and really interested in getting zimbra >> into official fedora repository. It would be great if we (interested folks >> here) get together and get it done ASAP. > > Great. Are you in touch with any of the folks from Zimbra? Or will you be > tackling the packaging by yourself? > i am ready to take it on my own :-) But, it would be great if I can find some zimbra folks around, that would be very much ++ or even anyone who would is ready to get together with me. -- Regards, Rakesh Pandit _______________________________________________ Fedora-isv-sig-list mailing list Fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-isv-sig-list From rakesh at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 21 19:51:02 2008 From: rakesh at fedoraproject.org (Rakesh Pandit) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:21:02 +0530 Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: <7375870.1151216669329230.JavaMail.lfaus@lee-imac.local> References: <7375870.1151216669329230.JavaMail.lfaus@lee-imac.local> Message-ID: 2008/7/22 Lee Faus : > Rakesh, > > You might want to start by looking at dependencies. We have started one for Alfresco: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Alfresco. This way we can determine overlaps so we don't duplicate efforts. > Yes, nice suggestion. /me will be on it as soon as possible. Jeroen will also be collaborating with me. Thanks will update shortly. -- Rakesh rakesh at fedoraproject.org From kwade at redhat.com Mon Jul 21 20:24:58 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:24:58 -0700 Subject: who is going to be at OSCON? Message-ID: <1216671898.12676.359.camel@calliope.phig.org> Jennifer Venable, Greg DeKoeningsberg, and myself are going to be at OSCON, along with Jack Aboutboul and a host of other Fedora Ambassadors. You can find our planning pages, including booth schedule here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OSCON/OSCON2008 Anyone who wants to talk with me on microphone for Red Hat Magazine/Dev Fu about your experiences with ... well, anything, but particularly open source and Fedora, just let me know! If you hate the mic/video 'cast experience, I'm happy to interview you with just words, the old fashioned way. :) cheers - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jhibbets at redhat.com Mon Jul 21 20:41:55 2008 From: jhibbets at redhat.com (Jason Hibbets) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:41:55 -0400 Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4884F493.2070507@redhat.com> Rakesh, This is VERY exciting! I posted a message on the Zimbra Forums to help gather interest: http://www.zimbra.com/forums/developers/20313-zimbra-fedora.html Not sure if you need a zimbra login to view it, so here is the message: There has been some recent discussion in the Fedora community about making Zimbra an RPM and getting Zimbra into Fedora. Fedora Package Maintainer, Rakesh Pandit, is ready to lead the effort. * Wanna help & contribute? * Already using Fedora and want to see Zimbra available to millions of users with a simple, one-command install? :::: yum install zimbra Check out the ISV Special Interest Group (SIG) at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/ISV and join the mailing list at https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listi...a-isv-sig-list In full disclosure, I do work for Red Hat, but this is such a great idea that it seems inevitable for Zimbra to get into Fedora. Regards, Jason Rakesh Pandit wrote: > 2008/7/22 Greg Dekoenigsberg : >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Rakesh Pandit wrote: >> >>> Hello list, >>> >>> I am Fedora Package Maintainer and really interested in getting zimbra >>> into official fedora repository. It would be great if we (interested folks >>> here) get together and get it done ASAP. >> Great. Are you in touch with any of the folks from Zimbra? Or will you be >> tackling the packaging by yourself? >> > > i am ready to take it on my own :-) > > But, it would be great if I can find some zimbra folks around, that > would be very much ++ or > even anyone who would is ready to get together with me. > > -- > Regards, > Rakesh Pandit > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-isv-sig-list mailing list > Fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-isv-sig-list -- Jason Hibbets, RHCE RHX & ISV Marketing Specialist Office - 919.754.4181 Red Hat :: 1801 Varsity Drive :: Raleigh, NC 27606 IT executives: Red Hat #1 in value. Again. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ From rakesh at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 21 22:14:34 2008 From: rakesh at fedoraproject.org (Rakesh Pandit) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:44:34 +0530 Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: <4884F493.2070507@redhat.com> References: <4884F493.2070507@redhat.com> Message-ID: 2008/7/22 Jason Hibbets : > Rakesh, > > This is VERY exciting! I posted a message on the Zimbra Forums to help > gather interest: > http://www.zimbra.com/forums/developers/20313-zimbra-fedora.html > > Not sure if you need a zimbra login to view it, so here is the message: > [..] Very Cool!! Thanks Jason. A little search leads to this thread https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2008-July/msg00147.html http://www.zimbra.com/forums/announcements/19581-license-5-0-7-foss.html license issue is already been taken care! Cheers Fedora marketing and all those folks who had put in there effort ! -- Regards, Rakesh Pandit rakesh at fedoraproject.org /me is about to collapse on bed. already 3:40am IST From kanarip at kanarip.com Mon Jul 21 22:43:28 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:43:28 +0200 Subject: Can replies go to the list please? Message-ID: <48851110.70107@kanarip.com> Can someone (Greg? Karsten?) configure the mailing list to have replies go the list instead of the poster please? It saves me a lot of duplicates. Thanks in advance, Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From bkearney at redhat.com Tue Jul 22 12:08:25 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:08:25 -0400 Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: <7375870.1151216669329230.JavaMail.lfaus@lee-imac.local> References: <7375870.1151216669329230.JavaMail.lfaus@lee-imac.local> Message-ID: <4885CDB9.1010005@redhat.com> Lee... are folks actively working on getting these packages into fedora? -- bk Lee Faus wrote: > Rakesh, > > You might want to start by looking at dependencies. We have started one for Alfresco: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Alfresco. This way we can determine overlaps so we don't duplicate efforts. > > Lee > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rakesh Pandit" > To: "Greg Dekoenigsberg" > Cc: fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com, "Jeroen van Meeuwen (Fedora Project)" > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:25:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: packaging zimbra > > 2008/7/22 Greg Dekoenigsberg : >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Rakesh Pandit wrote: >> >>> Hello list, >>> >>> I am Fedora Package Maintainer and really interested in getting zimbra >>> into official fedora repository. It would be great if we (interested folks >>> here) get together and get it done ASAP. >> Great. Are you in touch with any of the folks from Zimbra? Or will you be >> tackling the packaging by yourself? >> > > i am ready to take it on my own :-) > > But, it would be great if I can find some zimbra folks around, that > would be very much ++ or > even anyone who would is ready to get together with me. > > -- > Regards, > Rakesh Pandit > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-isv-sig-list mailing list > Fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-isv-sig-list > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-isv-sig-list mailing list > Fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-isv-sig-list From lee.faus at alfresco.com Tue Jul 22 12:33:45 2008 From: lee.faus at alfresco.com (Lee Faus) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:33:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: <4885CDB9.1010005@redhat.com> Message-ID: <8276996.1251216730154133.JavaMail.lfaus@lee-imac.local> We have two people at Alfresco that are currently working on finishing up packages for Ubuntu. Once they are finished they are going to start working on the RPMs for Fedora. Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Kearney" To: "Lee Faus" Cc: "Rakesh Pandit" , fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com, "Jeroen van Meeuwen (Fedora Project)" Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:08:25 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: packaging zimbra Lee... are folks actively working on getting these packages into fedora? -- bk Lee Faus wrote: > Rakesh, > > You might want to start by looking at dependencies. We have started one for Alfresco: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Alfresco. This way we can determine overlaps so we don't duplicate efforts. > > Lee > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rakesh Pandit" > To: "Greg Dekoenigsberg" > Cc: fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com, "Jeroen van Meeuwen (Fedora Project)" > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:25:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: packaging zimbra > > 2008/7/22 Greg Dekoenigsberg : >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Rakesh Pandit wrote: >> >>> Hello list, >>> >>> I am Fedora Package Maintainer and really interested in getting zimbra >>> into official fedora repository. It would be great if we (interested folks >>> here) get together and get it done ASAP. >> Great. Are you in touch with any of the folks from Zimbra? Or will you be >> tackling the packaging by yourself? >> > > i am ready to take it on my own :-) > > But, it would be great if I can find some zimbra folks around, that > would be very much ++ or > even anyone who would is ready to get together with me. > > -- > Regards, > Rakesh Pandit > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-isv-sig-list mailing list > Fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-isv-sig-list > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-isv-sig-list mailing list > Fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-isv-sig-list From bkearney at redhat.com Wed Jul 23 12:08:43 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:08:43 -0400 Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: <8276996.1251216730154133.JavaMail.lfaus@lee-imac.local> References: <8276996.1251216730154133.JavaMail.lfaus@lee-imac.local> Message-ID: <48871F4B.20305@redhat.com> Ol the Alfresco bits, or on all the depdendencies on the list as well/ -- bk Lee Faus wrote: > We have two people at Alfresco that are currently working on finishing up packages for Ubuntu. Once they are finished they are going to start working on the RPMs for Fedora. > > Lee > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bryan Kearney" > To: "Lee Faus" > Cc: "Rakesh Pandit" , fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com, "Jeroen van Meeuwen (Fedora Project)" > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:08:25 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: packaging zimbra > > Lee... are folks actively working on getting these packages into fedora? > > -- bk > > > Lee Faus wrote: >> Rakesh, >> >> You might want to start by looking at dependencies. We have started one for Alfresco: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Alfresco. This way we can determine overlaps so we don't duplicate efforts. >> >> Lee >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rakesh Pandit" >> To: "Greg Dekoenigsberg" >> Cc: fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com, "Jeroen van Meeuwen (Fedora Project)" >> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:25:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern >> Subject: Re: packaging zimbra >> >> 2008/7/22 Greg Dekoenigsberg : >>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Rakesh Pandit wrote: >>> >>>> Hello list, >>>> >>>> I am Fedora Package Maintainer and really interested in getting zimbra >>>> into official fedora repository. It would be great if we (interested folks >>>> here) get together and get it done ASAP. >>> Great. Are you in touch with any of the folks from Zimbra? Or will you be >>> tackling the packaging by yourself? >>> >> i am ready to take it on my own :-) >> >> But, it would be great if I can find some zimbra folks around, that >> would be very much ++ or >> even anyone who would is ready to get together with me. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Rakesh Pandit >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fedora-isv-sig-list mailing list >> Fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-isv-sig-list >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fedora-isv-sig-list mailing list >> Fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-isv-sig-list From jhibbets at redhat.com Thu Jul 24 21:26:00 2008 From: jhibbets at redhat.com (Jason Hibbets) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:26:00 -0400 Subject: Zimbra Leverages Red Hat Exchange to Navigate License Issue Message-ID: <4888F368.9060703@redhat.com> The RHX team wanted the ISV-SIG community to see the latest blog post that we've released: *Zimbra Leverages Red Hat Exchange to Navigate License Issue* http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/07/24/zimbra-leverages-red-hat-exchange-to-navigate-license-issue/ We continue to look for success stories like this to promote on our partners behalf, particularly since this is relevant to the ISV SIG group. Send any idea's to the list. Jason -- Jason Hibbets, RHCE RHX & ISV Marketing Specialist Office - 919.754.4181 Red Hat :: 1801 Varsity Drive :: Raleigh, NC 27606 IT executives: Red Hat #1 in value. Again. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ From jhibbets at redhat.com Tue Jul 29 17:33:00 2008 From: jhibbets at redhat.com (Jason Hibbets) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:33:00 -0400 Subject: Linux World (next week) Message-ID: <488F544C.10909@redhat.com> Anyone going to be at Linux World next week in San Fransisco? I will be there all week if anyone wants to meet. Jason -- Jason Hibbets, RHCE RHX & ISV Marketing Specialist Office - 919.754.4181 Red Hat :: 1801 Varsity Drive :: Raleigh, NC 27606 IT executives: Red Hat #1 in value. Again. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jul 29 20:50:24 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:50:24 -0700 Subject: Linux World (next week) In-Reply-To: <488F544C.10909@redhat.com> References: <488F544C.10909@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1217364624.10618.91.camel@calliope.phig.org> On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 13:33 -0400, Jason Hibbets wrote: > Anyone going to be at Linux World next week in San Fransisco? > > I will be there all week if anyone wants to meet. I'll be there, mainly on the expo floor, still finalizing my schedule. I can be found at the Fedora booth in the .ORG Pavilion. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bkearney at redhat.com Wed Jul 30 13:27:10 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:27:10 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? Message-ID: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> I have a question. The other day I put out a sugar desktop appliance [1] based on F9. It was pointed out that I violated the fedora trademark policies. I did some digging, and the relevant page seems to be [2]. My question is what is a "modification". If you look at my kickstart file [3], you see that I did 2 things which could be it: a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora (xulrunner) b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo Does anyone know which item (a or b) was the actual issue? I bring this up here since as ISVs begin to get more integrated with fedora, it is possible that they will ship appliances, live-cds, live-usbs, install media, etc. It would be nice to know when it is necessary to re-brand to stay in compliance with the trademark guidelines. BTW.. it was pretty easy to rebrand the appliance, so this is not an issue of effort.. more of clarity. -- bk [1] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugarAppliance.tar.gz [2] http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html [3] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugar.ks From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jul 30 16:42:46 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:42:46 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 09:27 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: > a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora > (xulrunner) > b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo > > Does anyone know which item (a or b) was the actual issue? Right now, both a and b are problems. We're currently trying to fix the trademark guidelines so that we're more flexible in cases like this. ~spot From bkearney at redhat.com Wed Jul 30 18:48:42 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:48:42 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 09:27 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: >> a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora >> (xulrunner) >> b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo >> >> Does anyone know which item (a or b) was the actual issue? > > Right now, both a and b are problems. We're currently trying to fix the > trademark guidelines so that we're more flexible in cases like this. to be clear, "a" and "b" require rebranding? -- bk From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jul 30 18:55:51 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:55:51 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 14:48 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 09:27 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: > >> a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora > >> (xulrunner) > >> b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo > >> > >> Does anyone know which item (a or b) was the actual issue? > > > > Right now, both a and b are problems. We're currently trying to fix the > > trademark guidelines so that we're more flexible in cases like this. > > > to be clear, "a" and "b" require rebranding? Yes. A) Because you added a package that isn't from Fedora. B) Because you added a package that isn't from Fedora. ~spot From bkearney at redhat.com Wed Jul 30 19:10:22 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:10:22 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the kickstart file +generic-release +generic-logos -fedora-release -fedora-logos -fedora-release-notes -- bk Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 14:48 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: >> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >>> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 09:27 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: >>>> a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora >>>> (xulrunner) >>>> b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo >>>> >>>> Does anyone know which item (a or b) was the actual issue? >>> Right now, both a and b are problems. We're currently trying to fix the >>> trademark guidelines so that we're more flexible in cases like this. >> >> to be clear, "a" and "b" require rebranding? > > Yes. > > A) Because you added a package that isn't from Fedora. > B) Because you added a package that isn't from Fedora. > > ~spot > From kanarip at kanarip.com Wed Jul 30 22:44:59 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:44:59 +0200 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> Bryan Kearney wrote: > In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not > provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the > kickstart file > We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!" message when you boot up. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From stickster at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 22:49:26 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:49:26 +0000 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Bryan Kearney wrote: > > In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not > > provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the > > kickstart file > > > > We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as > of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are > all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible > for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!" message when > you boot up. Wouldn't this make sense to do, though? Especially seeing as how the name "Fedora" is part of the trademark. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Wed Jul 30 23:11:51 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:11:51 -0700 Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1217459512.10618.259.camel@calliope.phig.org> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 00:34 +0530, Rakesh Pandit wrote: > Hello list, > > I am Fedora Package Maintainer and really interested in getting > zimbra into official > fedora repository. It would be great if we (interested folks here) get > together and get > it done ASAP. I've been in contact with Zimbra and am connecting through to the right people to bring to this party. I'll report back ASAP. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From rakesh.pandit at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 02:01:06 2008 From: rakesh.pandit at gmail.com (Rakesh Pandit) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:31:06 +0530 Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: <1217459512.10618.259.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <1217459512.10618.259.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: 2008/7/31 Karsten 'quaid' Wade : > > On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 00:34 +0530, Rakesh Pandit wrote: >> Hello list, >> >> I am Fedora Package Maintainer and really interested in getting >> zimbra into official >> fedora repository. It would be great if we (interested folks here) get >> together and get >> it done ASAP. > > I've been in contact with Zimbra and am connecting through to the right > people to bring to this party. I'll report back ASAP. > Nice, I had been using zimbra and playing with it for quite some time now ;-) There is one things which I wanted before building rpm this weekend. I have posted it at: http://www.zimbra.com/forums/developers/20313-zimbra-fedora.html "It would be great if whole zimbra source code (most recent stable) is uploaded at some place in (may be tar.gz or tar.bz2 compressed file). Currently, if I am right we need to checkout code using preforce and then build." It has been quite some time and no response :-/ I would anyway go ahead with checked out code for the moment. -- Regards, Rakesh Pandit From kanarip at kanarip.com Thu Jul 31 07:48:05 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:48:05 +0200 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> Bryan Kearney wrote: >>> In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not >>> provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the >>> kickstart file >>> >> We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as >> of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are >> all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible >> for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!" message when >> you boot up. > > Wouldn't this make sense to do, though? Especially seeing as how the > name "Fedora" is part of the trademark. > I'm CC:'ing the Fedora Spins list for other people that might show interest in this discussion. To me it doesn't make sense removing fedora-release from a downstream distribution and then still say "based on Fedora" or "Fedora derivative". This, in my opinion, should not be a requirement. I'd like to enable people to do it anyway, with the click of a mouse, but it's not that simple at this point. Fwiw the Fedora Spin SIG only requires new spin concepts that do not yet have Board Approval to exclude fedora-logos from their package manifest. Requiring anything more then that also involves more work for the spin requester/maintainer (and a little more for the Spin SIG as well). How we handle fedora-release being the cause for "Welcome to (...)" is also a thread on -devel, and afaic is a cosmetic thing for downstream distributions, not a requirement from Fedora (IMO). Taking this a little further, the trademark policy can simply not require a downstream distribution to remove all occurrences of the Fedora trademark (as a string) from the entire system. Although I'd like to enable them to do so, it's simply not scalable to keep track of where the Fedora name might occur in a package name, file name or file contents. Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind drinking my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-) Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/NewTrademarkGuidelines From bkearney at redhat.com Thu Jul 31 11:35:13 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:35:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-spins] When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <48919BFB.1090600@when.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <48919BFB.1090600@when.com> Message-ID: <4891A371.1090106@redhat.com> Sebastian Dziallas wrote: > Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>>> Bryan Kearney wrote: >> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark >> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you >> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it >> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session >> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same >> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare >> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) > > +1 > > This sounds really reasonable! If this would be well defined and then > added to the trademark policy, it would be, in my opinion, a real > improvement. > So.. I kicked this off on the ISV list, and here was the original scenario. I have a question. The other day I put out a sugar desktop appliance [1] based on F9. It was pointed out that I violated the fedora trademark policies. I did some digging, and the relevant page seems to be [2]. My question is what is a "modification". If you look at my kickstart file [3], you see that I did 2 things which could be it: a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora (xulrunner) b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo [1] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugarAppliance.tar.gz [2] http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html [3] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugar.ks My hope was that item (a) caused me to have to re-brand not item (b). Since item (b) is what would be required for appliances and live cds. It sounds like both A and B are issues. I will put these on the new guidelines pages to disucss. -- bk From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 12:19:56 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:19:56 +0000 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > >> Bryan Kearney wrote: > >>> In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not > >>> provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the > >>> kickstart file > >>> > >> We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as > >> of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are > >> all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible > >> for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!" message when > >> you boot up. > > > > Wouldn't this make sense to do, though? Especially seeing as how the > > name "Fedora" is part of the trademark. > > > > I'm CC:'ing the Fedora Spins list for other people that might show > interest in this discussion. > > To me it doesn't make sense removing fedora-release from a downstream > distribution and then still say "based on Fedora" or "Fedora > derivative". This, in my opinion, should not be a requirement. I'd like > to enable people to do it anyway, with the click of a mouse, but it's > not that simple at this point. I wasn't sure of the complexity required to create such a solution. > Fwiw the Fedora Spin SIG only requires new spin concepts that do not yet > have Board Approval to exclude fedora-logos from their package manifest. > Requiring anything more then that also involves more work for the spin > requester/maintainer (and a little more for the Spin SIG as well). > > How we handle fedora-release being the cause for "Welcome to (...)" is > also a thread on -devel, and afaic is a cosmetic thing for downstream > distributions, not a requirement from Fedora (IMO). Agreed, the cosmetic solution might simply be to change /etc/issue, or some such other downstream bit. > Taking this a little further, the trademark policy can simply not > require a downstream distribution to remove all occurrences of the > Fedora trademark (as a string) from the entire system. Although I'd like > to enable them to do so, it's simply not scalable to keep track of where > the Fedora name might occur in a package name, file name or file contents. Yes, I think this would be an onerous and extremely unworkable requirement too. I was only thinking of the case in derivative spins that use non-Fedora stuff, where we don't want users confused as to where they're going to get help. This discussion has been hashed over many times so there's no need to have it again here, I guess... :-) The new trademark guidelines (hopefully) will make it possible to allow a better connection to Fedora as the upstream but still make it clear that a distro is derived from Fedora and is not itself Fedora. > Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark > policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you > hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it > upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session > (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same > might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare > used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) > > Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind drinking > my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-) This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 12:28:05 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:28:05 +0000 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <1217507285.12970.29.camel@victoria> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:19 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark > > policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you > > hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it > > upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session > > (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same > > might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare > > used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) > > > > Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind drinking > > my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-) > > This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of > convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be > working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy > for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. Sorry to reply to myself. I wanted to make it doubly clear that I'm *only* talking about spins that use non-Fedora bits. The barrier for spins using only Fedora bits should be as low as possible. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sebastian at when.com Thu Jul 31 11:03:23 2008 From: sebastian at when.com (Sebastian Dziallas) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:03:23 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-spins] When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <48919BFB.1090600@when.com> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>> Bryan Kearney wrote: >>>> In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not >>>> provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the >>>> kickstart file >>>> >>> We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as >>> of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are >>> all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible >>> for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!" message when >>> you boot up. >> Wouldn't this make sense to do, though? Especially seeing as how the >> name "Fedora" is part of the trademark. >> > > I'm CC:'ing the Fedora Spins list for other people that might show > interest in this discussion. > > To me it doesn't make sense removing fedora-release from a downstream > distribution and then still say "based on Fedora" or "Fedora > derivative". This, in my opinion, should not be a requirement. I'd like > to enable people to do it anyway, with the click of a mouse, but it's > not that simple at this point. Yeah! +1 > Fwiw the Fedora Spin SIG only requires new spin concepts that do not yet > have Board Approval to exclude fedora-logos from their package manifest. > Requiring anything more then that also involves more work for the spin > requester/maintainer (and a little more for the Spin SIG as well). ...and I'm happy that's the way it is :) The Spin SIG already helped to simplify things significantly. So let's not make it more complicated than we need to do. Just let me cite Jeff, who stated some time ago on devel-list: >> Fact 0: >> We want people to build quality spins. >> Fact 1: >> our spin creation tools are make it dirt simple to create spins, but >> we still need a best-practices approach with human review to ensure >> quality. >> Fact 2: >> We do not have the resource to build and host every possible spin >> that the community is interested in building. > How we handle fedora-release being the cause for "Welcome to (...)" is > also a thread on -devel, and afaic is a cosmetic thing for downstream > distributions, not a requirement from Fedora (IMO). > > Taking this a little further, the trademark policy can simply not > require a downstream distribution to remove all occurrences of the > Fedora trademark (as a string) from the entire system. Although I'd like > to enable them to do so, it's simply not scalable to keep track of where > the Fedora name might occur in a package name, file name or file contents. I mean, we're not going to build the next CentOS or anything like this, are we? Just take the folks there as an example: They need weeks or even months for rebuilding the OS. Maybe this example isn't really fitting here... but I agree with Jeroen - it might be almost impossible to wipe the name Fedora from the whole distribution just for respinning it. > Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark > policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you > hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it > upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session > (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same > might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare > used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) +1 This sounds really reasonable! If this would be well defined and then added to the trademark policy, it would be, in my opinion, a real improvement. > Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind drinking > my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-) /me gotta run for a cup of coffee, too ;) Best Regards, Sebastian Dziallas > Kind regards, > > Jeroen van Meeuwen > -kanarip > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/NewTrademarkGuidelines > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-spins mailing list > Fedora-spins at lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-spins From sebastian at when.com Thu Jul 31 11:03:23 2008 From: sebastian at when.com (Sebastian Dziallas) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:03:23 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-spins] When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <48919BFB.1090600@when.com> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>> Bryan Kearney wrote: >>>> In the same way that there is a generic-logos is there any reason to not >>>> provide a generic-release? That way rebrandins is the following in the >>>> kickstart file >>>> >>> We have not required fedora-release to not be on the rebranded system as >>> of yet. Rebranding means removing the trademarked materials which are >>> all in fedora-logos (except for /etc/fedora-release which is responsible >>> for "Fedora" popping up in the little "Welcome to (...)!" message when >>> you boot up. >> Wouldn't this make sense to do, though? Especially seeing as how the >> name "Fedora" is part of the trademark. >> > > I'm CC:'ing the Fedora Spins list for other people that might show > interest in this discussion. > > To me it doesn't make sense removing fedora-release from a downstream > distribution and then still say "based on Fedora" or "Fedora > derivative". This, in my opinion, should not be a requirement. I'd like > to enable people to do it anyway, with the click of a mouse, but it's > not that simple at this point. Yeah! +1 > Fwiw the Fedora Spin SIG only requires new spin concepts that do not yet > have Board Approval to exclude fedora-logos from their package manifest. > Requiring anything more then that also involves more work for the spin > requester/maintainer (and a little more for the Spin SIG as well). ...and I'm happy that's the way it is :) The Spin SIG already helped to simplify things significantly. So let's not make it more complicated than we need to do. Just let me cite Jeff, who stated some time ago on devel-list: >> Fact 0: >> We want people to build quality spins. >> Fact 1: >> our spin creation tools are make it dirt simple to create spins, but >> we still need a best-practices approach with human review to ensure >> quality. >> Fact 2: >> We do not have the resource to build and host every possible spin >> that the community is interested in building. > How we handle fedora-release being the cause for "Welcome to (...)" is > also a thread on -devel, and afaic is a cosmetic thing for downstream > distributions, not a requirement from Fedora (IMO). > > Taking this a little further, the trademark policy can simply not > require a downstream distribution to remove all occurrences of the > Fedora trademark (as a string) from the entire system. Although I'd like > to enable them to do so, it's simply not scalable to keep track of where > the Fedora name might occur in a package name, file name or file contents. I mean, we're not going to build the next CentOS or anything like this, are we? Just take the folks there as an example: They need weeks or even months for rebuilding the OS. Maybe this example isn't really fitting here... but I agree with Jeroen - it might be almost impossible to wipe the name Fedora from the whole distribution just for respinning it. > Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark > policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you > hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it > upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session > (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same > might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare > used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) +1 This sounds really reasonable! If this would be well defined and then added to the trademark policy, it would be, in my opinion, a real improvement. > Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind drinking > my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-) /me gotta run for a cup of coffee, too ;) Best Regards, Sebastian Dziallas > Kind regards, > > Jeroen van Meeuwen > -kanarip > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/NewTrademarkGuidelines > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-spins mailing list > Fedora-spins at lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-spins From sebastian at when.com Thu Jul 31 12:04:44 2008 From: sebastian at when.com (Sebastian Dziallas) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:04:44 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-spins] When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <4891A371.1090106@redhat.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <48919BFB.1090600@when.com> <4891A371.1090106@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4891AA5C.5070709@when.com> Bryan Kearney wrote: > Sebastian Dziallas wrote: >> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>>>> Bryan Kearney wrote: > >>> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark >>> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case >>> you hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have >>> built it upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of >>> your session (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. >>> non-public). Same might apply to downstream vendors distributing >>> appliances (like VMWare used to distribute .vmx files for some >>> operating systems/distributions?) >> >> +1 >> >> This sounds really reasonable! If this would be well defined and then >> added to the trademark policy, it would be, in my opinion, a real >> improvement. > > So.. I kicked this off on the ISV list, and here was the original scenario. > > > I have a question. The other day I put out a sugar desktop appliance [1] > based on F9. It was pointed out that I violated the fedora trademark > policies. I did some digging, and the relevant page seems to be [2]. > > My question is what is a "modification". If you look at my kickstart > file [3], you see that I did 2 things which could be it: > > a) I added package from a foreign repo that is also in fedora (xulrunner) > b) I added packages to to the appliance from a foreign repo > > [1] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugarAppliance.tar.gz > [2] http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html > [3] http://sugar.s3.amazonaws.com/sugar.ks > > > My hope was that item (a) caused me to have to re-brand not item (b). > Since item (b) is what would be required for appliances and live cds. It > sounds like both A and B are issues. I will put these on the new > guidelines pages to disucss. > > -- bk Well... if I got it right - and feel free to correct me ;) - the current situation is that item (a) and (b) both force you to rebrand your spin / appliance, since they are non-Fedora bits :( I had the same situation two weeks ago or so. I had created an education spin using an external repository, since we wanted to use already KDE 4.1. But I didn't remove fedora-logos, so we needed to "pull the plug". (http://sdziallas.joyeurs.com/blog/2008/07/pulling-the-plug.html) I'm really in favor of such a trademark policy change, since it simplifies the whole thing quite a lot. One wouldn't need to rebrand the whole spin, when it stays non-public. At least, a kind of clarification on this topic would be definitely useful, since apparently, I'm not the only one, who didn't remove fedora-logos at first. Well, you asked for clarification, but I think this should be clearly stated somewhere in the wiki, in which cases one needs to rebrand - or not. Sebastian From bkearney at redhat.com Thu Jul 31 13:20:43 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:20:43 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <1217507285.12970.29.camel@victoria> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> <1217507285.12970.29.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <4891BC2B.3090704@redhat.com> Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:19 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark >>> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you >>> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it >>> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session >>> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same >>> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare >>> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) >>> >>> Anyway, these are just some of the thoughts that cross my mind drinking >>> my first cup of coffee today... Let me know what you think ;-) >> This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of >> convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be >> working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy >> for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. > > Sorry to reply to myself. I wanted to make it doubly clear that I'm > *only* talking about spins that use non-Fedora bits. The barrier for > spins using only Fedora bits should be as low as possible. I added this to the dicussion page for the trademarks. If we define a "SPIN" as something the board approves of and devotes resources too, then I am also interested in appliances/usbs which are done by third parties. Having the "based on" mark would be great. -- bk From kanarip at kanarip.com Thu Jul 31 14:36:40 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:36:40 +0200 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <4891CDF8.8020905@kanarip.com> Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> To me it doesn't make sense removing fedora-release from a downstream >> distribution and then still say "based on Fedora" or "Fedora >> derivative". This, in my opinion, should not be a requirement. I'd like >> to enable people to do it anyway, with the click of a mouse, but it's >> not that simple at this point. > > I wasn't sure of the complexity required to create such a solution. > It means building the foo-release RPM, which cannot simply be done with a mouse-click (yet). Some more complexity wrt rebranding is explained in one of my blog posts; http://kanarip.livejournal.com/2222.html and it's the top of the iceberg. >> Taking this a little further, the trademark policy can simply not >> require a downstream distribution to remove all occurrences of the >> Fedora trademark (as a string) from the entire system. Although I'd like >> to enable them to do so, it's simply not scalable to keep track of where >> the Fedora name might occur in a package name, file name or file contents. > > Yes, I think this would be an onerous and extremely unworkable > requirement too. I was only thinking of the case in derivative spins > that use non-Fedora stuff, where we don't want users confused as to > where they're going to get help. This discussion has been hashed over > many times so there's no need to have it again here, I guess... :-) The > new trademark guidelines (hopefully) will make it possible to allow a > better connection to Fedora as the upstream but still make it clear that > a distro is derived from Fedora and is not itself Fedora. > Yes, the "based on Fedora" use case, which I think could be implemented from a technical point of view so that a derivative: - may have fedora-release, but then needs to $ sed -i -e 's/Fedora/Foo/g' /etc/fedora-release and needs another package, foo-release, to install the additional resources in terms of RPM-GPG keys and repository configuration. == or == - does not use fedora-release and fully enables their foo-release to have all the content needed. >> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark >> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you >> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it >> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session >> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same >> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare >> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) >> > > This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of > convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be > working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy > for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. > Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other distributions to use or derive from. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From kanarip at kanarip.com Thu Jul 31 14:47:29 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:47:29 +0200 Subject: packaging zimbra In-Reply-To: <1217459512.10618.259.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <1217459512.10618.259.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <4891D081.50801@kanarip.com> Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 00:34 +0530, Rakesh Pandit wrote: >> Hello list, >> >> I am Fedora Package Maintainer and really interested in getting >> zimbra into official >> fedora repository. It would be great if we (interested folks here) get >> together and get >> it done ASAP. > > I've been in contact with Zimbra and am connecting through to the right > people to bring to this party. I'll report back ASAP. > Nice, some people inside is what this will get this party started. Thanks! Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From bkearney at redhat.com Thu Jul 31 16:19:30 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:19:30 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <4891CDF8.8020905@kanarip.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> <4891CDF8.8020905@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <4891E612.3010803@redhat.com> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right > terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that > matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to > rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing > fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other > distributions to use or derive from. > so.. I would like to see a fedora-based-logos which gives a fedora branded look, but makes it clear there are new items on top. If they change something in fedora, use generic-logos This assumes we have a valid "based on" concept in the trademark guide. -- bk