[fab] discussion topics for red hat ceo

[Matt Domsch]

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:27:43AM -0500, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
> Max Spevack wrote:
> > 
> > Mark is on this list.  We should be able to get his legal viewpoint
> > quite easily.
> > 
> > FC5 + Updates is all packages that live under the "Fedora" blessing.
> > 
> > I'd like for us to be able to use the official Fedora logo on it -- if
> > we call it Fedora Core 5, Update 1 or something else -- that naming is
> > something we can work on.
> > 
> > Effectively, aren't we giving an updated snapshot of FC5 -- the one that
> > people would get if the installed FC5 Gold and then ran yum update?  So
> > we're saving people time/bandwidth, and they get the same bits.  I want
> > to call that Fedora.
> > 
> 
> Release is now eminent. Can I get a final confirmation that we can call
> this "Fedora Core <ver> <Re-Spin or Update> <date of snapshot>" Re-Spin
> is what the community has been calling this type of work, our current
> ISOs are named with respin in the file name. This can easily be changed
> later.

RHEL uses the "Update N" language.
SuSE and others use "Service Pack N" language.

both of these have some form of scheduled Updates though, so the
number has meaning in that context.

If this is just the snapshot of Core + /updates/* directory stuff as
of a given date, how about "Fedora Core <ver> Updated <date of snapshot>"


http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/page4.html
would seem to allow it to be called "Fedora Core <ver> Updated <date>"
so long as all of the software is identical to that found on the
Fedora Project web site (signed by the Fedora keys I'm sure).

My say isn't final, but that's what I'd think.

Thanks,
Matt