Chris Tyler chris at tylers.info
Sat Nov 1 02:00:36 UTC 2008

On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > 
> > Having said that, Sugar and OLPC are a pretty big deal.  The spin has been
> > approved by the board and is (or will be) an official spin.  
> Small comment.  The board gave the Sugar spin the approval to use the
> Fedora brand.  This doesn't automatically mean that it'll become a
> produced and hosted spin in binary format.  All it means is that the
> spin KS config can live in the spin-kickstarts repo and use the Fedora
> branding should somebody create the binary spin from the config.  It
> would still have to have a Feature proposed and approved by the spins
> SIG and by releng before it would be an official spin.

I agree: trademark approval does not automatically mean that the spin
will be hosted and distributed by Fedora infrastructure. I can imagine
that we'll eventually have a much larger number of trademark-approved
spins than we'll want to host and distribute -- h&d decisions should be
made by some combination of the spins SIG, releng, and infra.

We need to decide terminology here: we have "official spin", "unofficial
spin", and "remix" floating around. "Unofficial spin" is sometimes being
used the way I think "remix" was intended to be used, meaning something
that doesn't have approval to use the primary trademark. 

Can we settle on:

- "Remix" for "not approved to use the Fedora trademark" (but eligible
to use the secondary mark). I don't think these will normally be hosted
by Fedora.

- "Spin" for "trademark-approved", further subdivided into:
-- "Unofficial spin" (trademark-approved but has not gone through the
Features process, and not h&d by Fedora)
-- "Offical spin" (trademark-approved and has gone through the Features
processs, h&d by Fedora)


> Honestly this feels like a board issue, which is why I asked for it to
> be brought to FAB.  One of the options mentioned was to have a binary
> version of the spin produced by the spin owner and hosted on OLPC
> resources.  I'm fine with this, the only catch is that the sources for
> what goes into the spin will also have to be hosted over at OLPC for the
> duration of time that the binary spin is there.  This shouldn't be a big
> deal, but it needs to be done.

Why would they have to host sources? If it's an officially-branded spin,
then it consists only of Fedora packages, so why not just point back to
Fedora for the source?[0]


[0]  Note that a student is working on a web app to grab source from CVS
for any given package name-version-release and return a .src.rpm for it,
plus a script to scan an ISO and create a corresponding source ISO;
thanks to Matt Domsch for the ideas. In the meantime everything is at
least in CVS.

More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list