Spins process - technical requirements

Bryan Kearney bkearney at redhat.com
Tue Nov 11 14:19:05 UTC 2008

Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:58AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm)
>>> Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're
>>> obviously not that relevant.
>> Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main
>> Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to
>> be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a
>> sub-standard community-produced spin.
> The "Fedora Remix" mark was invented precisely to avoid community
> members having to go through an approval process.  I made a wiki page
> for easy redirection if needed:

So.. lemme throw this out again. What do folks think about the idea that 
all spins in the spin-repository only carry the fedora mark. Not the 
remix mark. If we did this, it would be very easy for the Spin SIG to 
enforce the technical requirements.

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Remix
>> Though I *believe*, however I'm not sure, that spins carrying the
>> secondary mark would be allowed to use third-party content in their
>> spins. Is this correct?
> That's correct.  The new trademark guidelines lay out the use cases
> for the Fedora Remix mark:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Trademark_guidelines
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list