Spins process - technical requirements

[Bryan Kearney]

Chris Tyler wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:19 -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Sounds right. If the word "Spin" is reserved for Spin-SIG & trademark
> approved, then it's easy to explain what gets into the spin-repository
> and what doesn't. Any aspiring Spin would therefore be a Remix until
> it's approved, and for all remixes the technical quality and legal
> status (with respect to non-Fedora content) is up to the remixer.

And.. if we want.. we can have a Remix-category which points to external 
sources of remixes. That way we are being good and promoting them, but 
saying that spins == trademarks.

-- bk