From stickster at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 14:32:30 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:32:30 -0500 Subject: Trademark license agreement status Message-ID: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> In response to the insightful comments we've received over the past few months, and some great input gathered here in the last few weeks, the trademark license agreement has been updated. The current text continues to be available on the wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_license_agreement I'm interested to hear how the changes made to address our most recent conversations translate to people's satisfaction with the current licensing terms. We can continue this discussion transparently here on the list, where all community members can benefit. However, anyone with a special situation is always welcome to email me to discuss it, and I look forward to hearing from you in either venue. As I hope everyone has seen, our legal counsel is excited at the opportunity to do what I get to do every day. In this case, that's working with the community, to create a trademark licensing process that mutually respects all the participants and effectively protects and promotes the Fedora brand. Once everyone's generally satisfied with terms, I look forward to working with each of you to establish a license that helps you continue doing a great job of promoting Fedora to the wider community. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From fedora at ml.shredzone.de Tue Sep 8 07:50:53 2009 From: fedora at ml.shredzone.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Richard_K=F6rber?=) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:50:53 +0200 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> Paul, thank you and Pamela for your efforts regarding the TLA. Anyhow my questions about a proper "permitted use" remained unaddressed. I spent the weekend thinking, and finally I decided to close down my Fedora site. I can publish the content anywhere else, so after all, we're just talking about a mere domain. For me, it's not worth all the fuss. It's easier to continue writing about Fedora in my private blog, though honestly with less motivation to do so. It's an experience with a slightly bitter touch, because this is the second time I finally closed down a successful community site because of American trademark law. -- Richard "Shred" K?rber http://www.fedorablog.de From bob at fedoraunity.org Tue Sep 8 14:17:29 2009 From: bob at fedoraunity.org (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:17:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> Message-ID: <2231300.78041252419449631.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> ----- "Richard K?rber" wrote: > Paul, > > thank you and Pamela for your efforts regarding the TLA. Anyhow my > questions about a proper "permitted use" remained unaddressed. > > I spent the weekend thinking, and finally I decided to close down my > Fedora site. I can publish the content anywhere else, so after all, > we're just talking about a mere domain. For me, it's not worth all > the > fuss. It's easier to continue writing about Fedora in my private > blog, > though honestly with less motivation to do so. > > It's an experience with a slightly bitter touch, because this is the > second time I finally closed down a successful community site because > of > American trademark law. > Sad to see some of the spirit that made this community so cool for the last 5 years die, killed by lawyers. -- Bob From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Sep 8 14:47:30 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:47:30 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <2231300.78041252419449631.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> References: <2231300.78041252419449631.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <4AA66E82.9060704@redhat.com> On 09/08/2009 10:17 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > Sad to see some of the spirit that made this community so cool for the last 5 years die, killed by lawyers. Okay, really? One guy decides that he's not willing to wait for the lawyer to research German trademark law to see if we can work with him and you're claiming that the community's spirit has been "killed by lawyers"? That's absurd. I'd make the point that if anything is poisonous, it is hyperbole and negative statements like the one that you made. Red Hat Legal is active and works very hard (both in public and private) to ensure that we are protected from risk (legal and financial). The things that Fedora is doing are pushing the boundaries of existing copyright and trademark law and precedence, and Red Hat Legal never simply tells us "no, stop, don't do that", they research the issues and work with us to come up with acceptable solutions whenever possible. I think they deserve a bit more respect than you're giving them. It is NOT the intent of Red Hat or Fedora to prevent community members from using the trademarks in reasonable ways, in fact, it is the opposite of that. We're actively and persistently trying to address every concern that we are aware of, to improve the trademark license agreement so that it is acceptable to as many people as possible. So, please, let's try to turn off the negative energy here. Like my 2nd grade teacher used to tell us, "if you ain't got nothing nice to say, keep it shut". ~spot From mmcgrath at redhat.com Tue Sep 8 14:59:42 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:59:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Richard K?rber wrote: > Paul, > > thank you and Pamela for your efforts regarding the TLA. Anyhow my > questions about a proper "permitted use" remained unaddressed. > > I spent the weekend thinking, and finally I decided to close down my > Fedora site. I can publish the content anywhere else, so after all, > Just curious on my end. Specifically what would have been required for you to not shut it down? No TLA? -Mike From pchestek at redhat.com Tue Sep 8 15:52:43 2009 From: pchestek at redhat.com (Pamela Chestek) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:52:43 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> Message-ID: <4AA67DCB.6030008@redhat.com> Richard K?rber wrote on 09/08/2009 03:50 AM: > Paul, > > thank you and Pamela for your efforts regarding the TLA. Anyhow my > questions about a proper "permitted use" remained unaddressed. > As I mentioned, I was checking with some colleagues on their thoughts about whether it was problematic to ask for trademark symbols to be used. Unfortunately no one had a clear answer. In light of the uncertainty, I would recommend to Fedora that the Trademark Guidelines and the TLA (In Exhibit C) both be amended to state (borrowing the Sun approach), "The '?' symbol should be placed after the first or most prominent use of the FEDORA Mark and the 'TM' should appear after the first or most prominent use of the Infinity design logo unless your editorial convention is never to use symbols with any company's marks, including your own." Therefore, if you aren't doing it for anyone else you don't have to do it for Fedora. Note that Fedora still asks that the trademark legend ("Fedora and the Infinity design logo are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc.") be included, but that can be on the imprint page. The mirroring issue has been addressed with a change to the contract, available in draft here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_license_agreement. In it, a new sentence was added in paragraph 4 that says "If the Web Pages are a verbatim copy of official Fedora Project website materials (currently at www.fedoraproject.org), the obligations of this paragraph have been satisfied." Are there any other outstanding issues? I looked through the emails and believe they've all been addressed. Is there something I missed? > I spent the weekend thinking, and finally I decided to close down my > Fedora site. I can publish the content anywhere else, so after all, > we're just talking about a mere domain. For me, it's not worth all the > fuss. It's easier to continue writing about Fedora in my private blog, > though honestly with less motivation to do so. > > It's an experience with a slightly bitter touch, because this is the > second time I finally closed down a successful community site because of > American trademark law. > > Richard, I'm sorry to hear that we haven't yet been able to satisfy all your concerns and I hope you can clarify for me any additional issues that are still problematic for you. Your help has been invaluable in this process and I believe we have a much better agreement because of it. Pam From fedora at ml.shredzone.de Tue Sep 8 16:44:55 2009 From: fedora at ml.shredzone.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Richard_K=F6rber?=) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:44:55 +0200 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AA67DCB.6030008@redhat.com> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> <4AA67DCB.6030008@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AA68A07.4030804@ml.shredzone.de> > As I mentioned, I was checking with some colleagues on their thoughts > about whether it was problematic to ask for trademark symbols to be > used. Unfortunately no one had a clear answer. In light of the > uncertainty, I would recommend to Fedora that the Trademark Guidelines > and the TLA (In Exhibit C) both be amended to state (borrowing the Sun > approach), "The '?' symbol should be placed after the first or most > prominent use of the FEDORA Mark and the 'TM' should appear after the > first or most prominent use of the Infinity design logo unless your > editorial convention is never to use symbols with any company's marks, > including your own." Therefore, if you aren't doing it for anyone else > you don't have to do it for Fedora. Note that Fedora still asks that > the trademark legend ("Fedora and the Infinity design logo are > trademarks of Red Hat, Inc.") be included, but that can be on the > imprint page. Well, our conversation ended quite abruptly when Paul announced the new draft where the "Permitted Use" was still unchanged. It seemed like there was no way to address my concerns at that issue. Anyhow, I think this will be good news for the other German Fedora sites. > The mirroring issue has been addressed with a change to the contract, > available in draft here: AFAIK Robert Scheck was having the mirroring issue. > Are there any other outstanding issues? I looked through the emails and > believe they've all been addressed. Is there something I missed? There aren't, at least for me. Knowingly breaching the Trademark Guidelines was what concerned me most. As I posted somewhere in a thread before, I think it is careless to sign a contract in the hope that parts of it will never be applied. > Richard, I'm sorry to hear that we haven't yet been able to satisfy all > your concerns and I hope you can clarify for me any additional issues > that are still problematic for you. Your help has been invaluable in > this process and I believe we have a much better agreement because of it. Thanks, this is good to know. There were no further comments from the other people in Christoph's thread, so I felt like I was finally making a complete idiot out of myself. You know that I ran the site non-commercially and that I write the articles in my spare time. The last days I was mostly thinking about the TLA, the implications they might cause, if I am worrying too much or being too careless, and all that. Those thoughts kept me awake at night. And they kept me from writing. I want to bring back the fun in writing articles, as it was before. If it means giving up the site in order to get rid of all that legal stuff, then it's the price I'll have to pay. -- Richard From bob at fedoraunity.org Tue Sep 8 16:49:34 2009 From: bob at fedoraunity.org (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:49:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <32231194.78151252428528664.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <26873615.78171252428574315.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> ----- "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On 09/08/2009 10:17 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > > Sad to see some of the spirit that made this community so cool for > the last 5 years die, killed by lawyers. > > Okay, really? One guy decides that he's not willing to wait for the > lawyer to research German trademark law to see if we can work with > him > and you're claiming that the community's spirit has been "killed by > lawyers"? > > That's absurd. I'd make the point that if anything is poisonous, it > is > hyperbole and negative statements like the one that you made. > > Red Hat Legal is active and works very hard (both in public and > private) > to ensure that we are protected from risk (legal and financial). The > things that Fedora is doing are pushing the boundaries of existing > copyright and trademark law and precedence, and Red Hat Legal never > simply tells us "no, stop, don't do that", they research the issues > and > work with us to come up with acceptable solutions whenever possible. > > I think they deserve a bit more respect than you're giving them. > > It is NOT the intent of Red Hat or Fedora to prevent community > members > from using the trademarks in reasonable ways, in fact, it is the > opposite of that. We're actively and persistently trying to address > every concern that we are aware of, to improve the trademark license > agreement so that it is acceptable to as many people as possible. > > So, please, let's try to turn off the negative energy here. Like my > 2nd > grade teacher used to tell us, "if you ain't got nothing nice to say, > keep it shut". > The spirit to create the sites for the community, a subset of the greater Fedora community, has been broken. Even if this issue is easily resolved I doubt Richard or any of us will ever feel the same about things as we did in the past. Perhaps it will be a great experience, only time will tell. I used to enjoy my involvement with Fedora, that is less true today because of things like this. Even if I have nothing nice to say, I still have my opinions and hopefully the right to express them. Richard clearly feels the problems with the TLA are insurmountable, one should not discount that with "We're actively and persistently trying to address every concern that we are aware of" it could be he feels that the "trying" is not going far enough. I have been attacked, called names and so on in private because I refuse to sign the original document, as a result I have reacted from a personal point of view. I have been passionate about the work we have done under the name "Fedora" when some item comes up to squelch that passion, I react with just as much passion to protect it. At times even in ways that could cause one to question my sanity and needs for medication. Hopefully the issues can be resolved, as I stated before in response to being told I should do so on the list, I will not negotiate on this list or any other. It can and is being handled in private. I do not feel that this item at this point needs input from those that start out with "IANAL" it is about domain owners and the lawyers and any interface between those parties in my opinion. Others with out a vested interest just muddy the waters. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Not sure that Red Hat Legal is the enemy, but it seems the interpretation and enforcement of the law is the enemy of the community in my eyes and the eyes of others. Hopefully the TLA is the base for a much more encompassing document for all of the community, not just domain owners. -- Bob From jspaleta at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 17:22:45 2009 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:22:45 -0800 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <26873615.78171252428574315.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> References: <32231194.78151252428528664.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> <26873615.78171252428574315.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <604aa7910909081022tbc00cfbuebcf05752b5cde74@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > I have been attacked, called names and so on in private because I refuse to sign the original document, as a result I have reacted from a personal point of view. Unfortunately, I can't do much about inappropriate private comments that have been directed at you...or inappropriate private comments directed at anyone. How much of the heat in the public discussion is spill over from private communications where a line was crossed and someone got offended and there weren't others in the conversation to work on smooth over the discord? I don't know, but I'm guessing its a majority of it...for everybody who is showing a little fray around the edges on this issue. Another reason I personally appreciate the legal reps willingness to come out on the public list and have a discussion. I understand that you don't like having the TLA exist at all. I get it. I think we can all agree that legal issues blow monkey chunks. Legal issues which intersect community interests...even more so. I really wish there was a pre-existing copyleft approach to trademark that still allowed the trademark to be enforcible for a license. But I'm not aware of such a construction. As it stands right now we have to make a choice with regard to keeping the trademark in an enforceable state. I think Glezos summed up the underlying issue. Is protecting the trademark long term worth the intangible short term cost? Its a very difficult question. We seemed to have survived the introduction of the CLA for contributors even though there was heat when it was introduced. -jef From dimitris at glezos.com Tue Sep 8 17:41:36 2009 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:41:36 +0300 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <604aa7910909081022tbc00cfbuebcf05752b5cde74@mail.gmail.com> References: <32231194.78151252428528664.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> <26873615.78171252428574315.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> <604aa7910909081022tbc00cfbuebcf05752b5cde74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6d4237680909081041o46e1f699gc58ce4d433b05826@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: >> I have been attacked, called names and so on in private because I refuse to sign the original document, as a result I have reacted from a personal point of view. > > [...] > I understand that you don't like having the TLA exist at all. ?I get > it. ?I think we can all agree that legal issues blow monkey chunks. > Legal issues which intersect community interests...even more so. ? ? I > really wish there was a pre-existing copyleft approach to trademark > that still allowed the trademark to be enforcible for a license. But > I'm not aware of such a construction. ? As it stands right now we have > to make a choice with regard to keeping the trademark in an > enforceable state. ?I think Glezos summed up the underlying issue. Is > protecting the trademark long term worth the intangible short term > cost? ?Its a very difficult question. ?We seemed to have survived the > introduction of the CLA for contributors even though there was heat > when it was introduced. It seems kinda complex to discuss complex issues over the net. This is even worse if some things are either already in stone, or kinda pre-decided. We're doing all these awesome conferences and activity days every now and then. Maybe we should schedule a few hours to discuss high-level Board-like policy-"umph!" issues. So, besides of just running a "Where are we and where are we going?" session, we'll also allow the board to answer tough questions from the community (eg. through something like [1]). I'd settle for a Board Summit once every a couple of years. -d [1]: http://moderator.appspot.com/ -- Dimitris Glezos Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ From bob at fedoraunity.org Tue Sep 8 17:42:02 2009 From: bob at fedoraunity.org (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:42:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <7706719.78201252431576138.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <15845794.78221252431721975.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> ----- "Jeff Spaleta" wrote: > Unfortunately, I can't do much about inappropriate private comments > that have been directed at you...or inappropriate private comments > directed at anyone. How much of the heat in the public discussion is > spill over from private communications where a line was crossed and > someone got offended and there weren't others in the conversation to > work on smooth over the discord? I don't know, but I'm guessing its a > majority of it...for everybody who is showing a little fray around > the > edges on this issue. Another reason I personally appreciate the > legal > reps willingness to come out on the public list and have a > discussion. > > I understand that you don't like having the TLA exist at all. I get > it. I think we can all agree that legal issues blow monkey chunks. > Legal issues which intersect community interests...even more so. > I > really wish there was a pre-existing copyleft approach to trademark > that still allowed the trademark to be enforcible for a license. But > I'm not aware of such a construction. As it stands right now we > have > to make a choice with regard to keeping the trademark in an > enforceable state. I think Glezos summed up the underlying issue. Is > protecting the trademark long term worth the intangible short term > cost? Its a very difficult question. We seemed to have survived the > introduction of the CLA for contributors even though there was heat > when it was introduced. > It was pointed out that "fedorasucks.com" is available, I would never register it and I would expect that it be dealt with by Red Hat Legal. I know that the TLA or some other channel is needed for them to do so don't get me wrong. I hope that the issues will be worked out, I have faith at this time they will. I also hope it can be a model for other groups that are similar to the community we have. -- Bob From stickster at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 18:03:45 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:03:45 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AA68A07.4030804@ml.shredzone.de> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> <4AA67DCB.6030008@redhat.com> <4AA68A07.4030804@ml.shredzone.de> Message-ID: <20090908180345.GJ17775@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 06:44:55PM +0200, Richard K?rber wrote: > > As I mentioned, I was checking with some colleagues on their thoughts > > about whether it was problematic to ask for trademark symbols to be > > used. Unfortunately no one had a clear answer. In light of the > > uncertainty, I would recommend to Fedora that the Trademark Guidelines > > and the TLA (In Exhibit C) both be amended to state (borrowing the Sun > > approach), "The '?' symbol should be placed after the first or most > > prominent use of the FEDORA Mark and the 'TM' should appear after the > > first or most prominent use of the Infinity design logo unless your > > editorial convention is never to use symbols with any company's marks, > > including your own." Therefore, if you aren't doing it for anyone else > > you don't have to do it for Fedora. Note that Fedora still asks that > > the trademark legend ("Fedora and the Infinity design logo are > > trademarks of Red Hat, Inc.") be included, but that can be on the > > imprint page. > > Well, our conversation ended quite abruptly when Paul announced the new > draft where the "Permitted Use" was still unchanged. It seemed like > there was no way to address my concerns at that issue. Not at all Richard, as I stated in that post, I was trying to collect all of the various changes that had come up so far, and then to continue the open conversation that had been going on. I'm not sure how one could interpret that as ending the conversation, but I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough about it. As far as Red Hat Legal and I are concerned, this is very much still an active, open issue and we'd like to hear where we haven't addressed your (or anyone else's) concerns. > Anyhow, I think this will be good news for the other German Fedora sites. > > > The mirroring issue has been addressed with a change to the contract, > > available in draft here: > > AFAIK Robert Scheck was having the mirroring issue. Very true; we wanted to try and address as many concerns as have been voiced to us in private and in public. > > Are there any other outstanding issues? I looked through the emails and > > believe they've all been addressed. Is there something I missed? > > There aren't, at least for me. Knowingly breaching the Trademark > Guidelines was what concerned me most. As I posted somewhere in a thread > before, I think it is careless to sign a contract in the hope that parts > of it will never be applied. I'm not sure what this means -- where do you believe you have to rely on hope? If we know the answer to that, it would help us figure out where the agreement might be unclear, so we can fix it. Looking back, I think there may be an open question from you about whether using trademark symbols in an imprint page would satisfy the agreement. Did we miss some other question that you feel hasn't been answered? -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 18:08:46 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:08:46 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <6d4237680909081041o46e1f699gc58ce4d433b05826@mail.gmail.com> References: <32231194.78151252428528664.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> <26873615.78171252428574315.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> <604aa7910909081022tbc00cfbuebcf05752b5cde74@mail.gmail.com> <6d4237680909081041o46e1f699gc58ce4d433b05826@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090908180846.GK17775@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 08:41:36PM +0300, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > >> I have been attacked, called names and so on in private because I refuse to sign the original document, as a result I have reacted from a personal point of view. > > > > [...] > > I understand that you don't like having the TLA exist at all. ?I get > > it. ?I think we can all agree that legal issues blow monkey chunks. > > Legal issues which intersect community interests...even more so. ? ? I > > really wish there was a pre-existing copyleft approach to trademark > > that still allowed the trademark to be enforcible for a license. But > > I'm not aware of such a construction. ? As it stands right now we have > > to make a choice with regard to keeping the trademark in an > > enforceable state. ?I think Glezos summed up the underlying issue. Is > > protecting the trademark long term worth the intangible short term > > cost? ?Its a very difficult question. ?We seemed to have survived the > > introduction of the CLA for contributors even though there was heat > > when it was introduced. > > It seems kinda complex to discuss complex issues over the net. This is > even worse if some things are either already in stone, or kinda > pre-decided. > > We're doing all these awesome conferences and activity days every now > and then. Maybe we should schedule a few hours to discuss high-level > Board-like policy-"umph!" issues. So, besides of just running a "Where > are we and where are we going?" session, we'll also allow the board to > answer tough questions from the community (eg. through something like > [1]). I'd settle for a Board Summit once every a couple of years. We do have a Board meeting scheduled at the FUDCon coming up in Toronto, although I understand we may not all be able to meet face to face there. We should be able to teleconference in anyone who can't be physically there. We can use that time for in-person Q&A, and/or schedule additional time to meet in whatever capacity the Board thinks is best. One of the advantages of having the FAB list is that no one has to wait for such an event. Anyone's free to bring up issues and tough questions on this list for the Board to address. Sometimes we have to do proper research to figure out the right answers, and one of the tradeoffs of an in-person Q&A is that we might not be able to get the right answer on the spot. However, both types of meetings are good things to have. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From pchestek at redhat.com Tue Sep 8 18:27:58 2009 From: pchestek at redhat.com (Pamela Chestek) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:27:58 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AA68A07.4030804@ml.shredzone.de> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> <4AA67DCB.6030008@redhat.com> <4AA68A07.4030804@ml.shredzone.de> Message-ID: <4AA6A22E.6080008@redhat.com> Richard K?rber wrote on 09/08/2009 12:44 PM: > > Well, our conversation ended quite abruptly when Paul announced the new > draft where the "Permitted Use" was still unchanged. It seemed like > there was no way to address my concerns at that issue. > Sorry for that, it wasn't meant that way. It just took me a little while to get some responses. > I think it is careless to sign a contract in the hope that parts > of it will never be applied. > I couldn't agree more and I wouldn't do it either. > > I want to bring back the fun in writing articles, as it was before. If > it means giving up the site in order to get rid of all that legal stuff, > then it's the price I'll have to pay. > > I don't want to discourage anyone's participation in the project or keep it from being fun, so I'm sorry that this situation had that unwelcome consequence. Pam From fedora at ml.shredzone.de Tue Sep 8 18:34:41 2009 From: fedora at ml.shredzone.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Richard_K=F6rber?=) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:34:41 +0200 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <20090908180345.GJ17775@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> <4AA67DCB.6030008@redhat.com> <4AA68A07.4030804@ml.shredzone.de> <20090908180345.GJ17775@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4AA6A3C1.6050607@ml.shredzone.de> > Not at all Richard, as I stated in that post, I was trying to collect > all of the various changes that had come up so far, and then to > continue the open conversation that had been going on. I'm not sure > how one could interpret that as ending the conversation, but I'm sorry > I wasn't clear enough about it. No, it wasn't meant that way. Sorry... The conversation ended with my question if putting the trademark sign note to the site's imprint would be sufficient, which remained unanswered. Later you posted the new draft, which did not address that concern at all. Nobody posted a comment to the draft for about a week, which actually irritates me, but there seems to be some kind of consensus. If I am the only one who is having concerns with the "Permitted Use" section, the problem is obviously me and not the TLA. > I'm not sure what this means -- where do you believe you have to rely > on hope? If we know the answer to that, it would help us figure out > where the agreement might be unclear, so we can fix it. It's section 4 "Permitted Use", along with the Attachment C. I tried to explain it in the thread "Red Hat Comments on License Agreement". > Looking back, I think there may be an open question from you about > whether using trademark symbols in an imprint page would satisfy the > agreement. Did we miss some other question that you feel hasn't been > answered? No, it was exactly that question... :-) -- Richard From fedora at ml.shredzone.de Tue Sep 8 18:50:57 2009 From: fedora at ml.shredzone.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Richard_K=F6rber?=) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:50:57 +0200 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AA6A22E.6080008@redhat.com> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> <4AA67DCB.6030008@redhat.com> <4AA68A07.4030804@ml.shredzone.de> <4AA6A22E.6080008@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AA6A791.6030300@ml.shredzone.de> > Sorry for that, it wasn't meant that way. It just took me a little > while to get some responses. Yes... It seems that it's a major communication problem. :( > I don't want to discourage anyone's participation in the project or keep > it from being fun, so I'm sorry that this situation had that unwelcome > consequence. You are doing a great job, and I don't think you can be blamed. I really appreciate your commitment for the community. I also understand that Red Hat needs the TLA in order to keep their trademarks. -- Richard From stickster at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 21:21:13 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:21:13 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AA6A3C1.6050607@ml.shredzone.de> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <4AA60CDD.2010805@ml.shredzone.de> <4AA67DCB.6030008@redhat.com> <4AA68A07.4030804@ml.shredzone.de> <20090908180345.GJ17775@localhost.localdomain> <4AA6A3C1.6050607@ml.shredzone.de> Message-ID: <20090908212113.GY17775@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 08:34:41PM +0200, Richard K?rber wrote: > > Not at all Richard, as I stated in that post, I was trying to collect > > all of the various changes that had come up so far, and then to > > continue the open conversation that had been going on. I'm not sure > > how one could interpret that as ending the conversation, but I'm sorry > > I wasn't clear enough about it. > > No, it wasn't meant that way. Sorry... > > The conversation ended with my question if putting the trademark sign > note to the site's imprint would be sufficient, which remained > unanswered. Later you posted the new draft, which did not address that > concern at all. Nobody posted a comment to the draft for about a week, > which actually irritates me, but there seems to be some kind of consensus. > > If I am the only one who is having concerns with the "Permitted Use" > section, the problem is obviously me and not the TLA. I don't think that's necessarily the case! :-) I think Pam is still gathering some information that would help us clarify whether and how an imprint could be used to do what you suggest. > > I'm not sure what this means -- where do you believe you have to rely > > on hope? If we know the answer to that, it would help us figure out > > where the agreement might be unclear, so we can fix it. > > It's section 4 "Permitted Use", along with the Attachment C. I tried to > explain it in the thread "Red Hat Comments on License Agreement". > > > Looking back, I think there may be an open question from you about > > whether using trademark symbols in an imprint page would satisfy the > > agreement. Did we miss some other question that you feel hasn't been > > answered? > > No, it was exactly that question... :-) OK, the important thing is that we've captured it, and once Pam has more information we can figure out how to handle that issue properly. The idea is not to force unreasonable changes on any community site, and if the language is unclear about that we want to clarify it. Hopefully that makes you sleep a bit easier at night! -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 23:31:29 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 19:31:29 -0400 Subject: Reminder: Fedora Board IRC meeting 1600 UTC 2009-09-10 Message-ID: <20090908233129.GI17775@localhost.localdomain> The Board is holding its monthly public meeting on Thursday, September 10, 2009, at 1600 UTC on IRC Freenode. For this meeting, the public is invited to do the following: * Join #fedora-board-meeting to see the Board's conversation. * Join #fedora-board-questions to discuss topics and post questions. This channel is read/write for everyone. The moderator will voice people from the queue, one at a time, in the #fedora-board-meeting channel. We'll limit time per voice as needed to give everyone in the queue a chance to be heard. The Board may reserve some time at the top of the hour to cover any agenda items as appropriate. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting! -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sonar_guy at c-ccom.com Tue Sep 8 23:44:06 2009 From: sonar_guy at c-ccom.com (Scott Glaser) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 19:44:06 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:32:30 -0500 "Paul W. Frields" wrote: > In response to the insightful comments we've received over the past > few months, and some great input gathered here in the last few weeks, > the trademark license agreement has been updated. The current text > continues to be available on the wiki: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_license_agreement > > I'm interested to hear how the changes made to address our most recent > conversations translate to people's satisfaction with the current > licensing terms. We can continue this discussion transparently here > on the list, where all community members can benefit. However, anyone > with a special situation is always welcome to email me to discuss it, > and I look forward to hearing from you in either venue. > > As I hope everyone has seen, our legal counsel is excited at the > opportunity to do what I get to do every day. In this case, that's > working with the community, to create a trademark licensing process > that mutually respects all the participants and effectively protects > and promotes the Fedora brand. Once everyone's generally satisfied > with terms, I look forward to working with each of you to establish a > license that helps you continue doing a great job of promoting Fedora > to the wider community. > Paul, I see four issues with the document in its current state: 1. There is no verbage defining what is cause for "termination or expiration of the License". It would be good if examples were included in the document explaining what is cause for termination or expiration of the license. 2. Why is there no verbiage in the TLA that the the registrant of the domain name would be reimbursed for their remaining expenses (domain registration/transfer fees) if the domain is registered for X amount of time and that time exceeds the life of the license? I think this would foster a better relationship with the community by doing so, as the expenses would be trivial to the Licensor should a domain need to be turned over. 3. What is done if the trademark is sold or the licensor goes out of business? Big question here, but it should be addressed in the agreement. 4. What is content control? Also what would be defined as objectionable by Licensor? This is very important to all Fedora Community members that publish Community based sites. v/r Scott Glaser From stickster at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 00:29:42 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:29:42 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> Message-ID: <20090909002942.GR17775@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 07:44:06PM -0400, Scott Glaser wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:32:30 -0500 > "Paul W. Frields" wrote: > > > In response to the insightful comments we've received over the past > > few months, and some great input gathered here in the last few weeks, > > the trademark license agreement has been updated. The current text > > continues to be available on the wiki: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_license_agreement > > > > I'm interested to hear how the changes made to address our most recent > > conversations translate to people's satisfaction with the current > > licensing terms. We can continue this discussion transparently here > > on the list, where all community members can benefit. However, anyone > > with a special situation is always welcome to email me to discuss it, > > and I look forward to hearing from you in either venue. > > > > As I hope everyone has seen, our legal counsel is excited at the > > opportunity to do what I get to do every day. In this case, that's > > working with the community, to create a trademark licensing process > > that mutually respects all the participants and effectively protects > > and promotes the Fedora brand. Once everyone's generally satisfied > > with terms, I look forward to working with each of you to establish a > > license that helps you continue doing a great job of promoting Fedora > > to the wider community. > > > > Paul, > > I see four issues with the document in its current state: > > 1. There is no verbage defining what is cause for "termination or > expiration of the License". > > It would be good if examples were included in the document explaining > what is cause for termination or expiration of the license. > > 2. Why is there no verbiage in the TLA that the the registrant of > the domain name would be reimbursed for their remaining expenses > (domain registration/transfer fees) if the domain is registered for X > amount of time and that time exceeds the life of the license? > > I think this would foster a better relationship with the community by > doing so, as the expenses would be trivial to the Licensor should a > domain need to be turned over. > > 3. What is done if the trademark is sold or the licensor goes out of > business? > > Big question here, but it should be addressed in the agreement. > > 4. What is content control? Also what would be defined as objectionable > by Licensor? > > This is very important to all Fedora Community members that publish > Community based sites. Excellent, these are all good points and we'll try to address all of them in short order. Thanks for itemizing these, since it will make the discussion easier as we go. The only question I have about the questions -- heh, sorry -- is on "What is content control?". From my search through the agreement, I only see that phrase used as a heading/title for a paragraph. The paragraph itself therefore defines what content control means in the agreement, so I'm not sure what your question means here. Does that make any sense? Can you suggest a better title? By the way, I had a little chuckle because "verbiage" usually means "excessive wording" -- which may be what you intended! :-) -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From sonar_guy at c-ccom.com Wed Sep 9 01:16:27 2009 From: sonar_guy at c-ccom.com (Scott Glaser) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:16:27 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <20090909002942.GR17775@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> <20090909002942.GR17775@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090908211627.51f25215@c-ccom.com> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:29:42 -0400 "Paul W. Frields" wrote: SNIP > The only question I have about the questions -- heh, sorry -- is on > "What is content control?". From my search through the agreement, I > only see that phrase used as a heading/title for a paragraph. The > paragraph itself therefore defines what content control means in the > agreement, so I'm not sure what your question means here. Does that > make any sense? Can you suggest a better title? Trademark Control: might be a better title for that section as it is what is being discussed. However I also believe that was an incomplete thought I jotted down, I meant to make this two points: 4. What would be defined as objectionable by the Licensor? I think that this is self explanatory we need to know what would be considered objectionable by the Licensor. 5. If Licensor determines that Licensee is using the Trademarks improperly, and/or in connection with goods or services not covered under this Agreement, Licensor will notify Licensee, and Licensee will remedy the improper use within two (2) business days following receipt of such notice from Licensor. What is meant by improper usage of the trademark and/or in connection with goods or services not covered under this Agreement? Does that mean if the Licensor does not agree with the content of our site based on the topic heading (Content Control) that the license could be revoked? Or if we are not following the trademark guidelines to the letter that the license could be revoked? Keep in mind this applies to many of the sites out there that cover topics that can not be handled by the Fedora Project proper (i.e. Third Party drivers). Also on point 5; two business days is a pretty aggressive schedule for hobbyist sites, I think five business days may be more amiably accepted by the community as a whole as most of us do this in our spare time and with real life commitments two days may become an issue depending on the nature of the request. > By the way, I had a little chuckle because "verbiage" usually means > "excessive wording" -- which may be what you intended! :-) I believe I meant verbage but the spell checker grabbed it and changed it to something quite humorous. v/r Scott Glaser From stickster at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 13:27:24 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:27:24 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <20090908211627.51f25215@c-ccom.com> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> <20090909002942.GR17775@localhost.localdomain> <20090908211627.51f25215@c-ccom.com> Message-ID: <20090909132724.GB9387@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 09:16:27PM -0400, Scott Glaser wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:29:42 -0400 > "Paul W. Frields" wrote: > > SNIP > > > The only question I have about the questions -- heh, sorry -- is on > > "What is content control?". From my search through the agreement, I > > only see that phrase used as a heading/title for a paragraph. The > > paragraph itself therefore defines what content control means in the > > agreement, so I'm not sure what your question means here. Does that > > make any sense? Can you suggest a better title? > > Trademark Control: might be a better title for that section as it is > what is being discussed. > > However I also believe that was an incomplete thought I jotted down, > I meant to make this two points: > > 4. What would be defined as objectionable by the Licensor? > > I think that this is self explanatory we need to know what would be > considered objectionable by the Licensor. There may be a common legal definition for "objectionable" here, I'm not sure. I'm certain the intention is not for it to mean "things with which Red Hat might disagree," and that Pam will help clarify this. Quashing open discussion is not a good way to grow the Fedora brand. ;-) > 5. If Licensor determines that Licensee is using the Trademarks > improperly, and/or in connection with goods or services not covered > under this Agreement, Licensor will notify Licensee, and Licensee will > remedy the improper use within two (2) business days following receipt > of such notice from Licensor. > > What is meant by improper usage of the trademark and/or in > connection with goods or services not covered under this Agreement? > Does that mean if the Licensor does not agree with the content of > our site based on the topic heading (Content Control) that the > license could be revoked? Or if we are not following the trademark > guidelines to the letter that the license could be revoked? Keep in > mind this applies to many of the sites out there that cover topics > that can not be handled by the Fedora Project proper (i.e. Third > Party drivers). My understanding is this means some substantial and repeated misuse that is harmful to the brand, for example mutating the logo; or using the logo outside the license agreement, such as to offer Fedora-branded goods for sale when the agreement doesn't cover that. The intent is not to squelch criticism or open discussion of topics, including those beyond what the Fedora Project itself offers. The required disclaimer that Red Hat and the Fedora Project aren't responsible for the site content already helps reduce confusion. We can surely look into changing that heading to be reflective of the real intent of the paragraph. > Also on point 5; two business days is a pretty aggressive schedule for > hobbyist sites, I think five business days may be more amiably > accepted by the community as a whole as most of us do this in our spare > time and with real life commitments two days may become an issue > depending on the nature of the request. I don't think there should be any problem changing that timeframe. > > By the way, I had a little chuckle because "verbiage" usually means > > "excessive wording" -- which may be what you intended! :-) > > I believe I meant verbage but the spell checker grabbed it and changed > it to something quite humorous. /me puts on Shaggy's "Bombastic" -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 23:13:08 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:13:08 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <20090909132724.GB9387@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> <20090909002942.GR17775@localhost.localdomain> <20090908211627.51f25215@c-ccom.com> <20090909132724.GB9387@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090910231308.GB17135@localhost.localdomain> Just wanted to note that Pam's still on the case -- she's out of the office for a few days this week but I expect we'll hear from her next week when she returns. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Mon Sep 14 16:07:24 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:07:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: distro summit at lca Message-ID: I noticed this: http://www.lca2010.org.nz/wiki/Miniconfs/Distro_Summit and I was wondering if we had anyone who was going to be able to go there. anyone in NZ/AU who might be a good fit? -sv From jwboyer at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 16:43:16 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:43:16 -0400 Subject: distro summit at lca In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090914164316.GB2632@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:07:24PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > I noticed this: > > http://www.lca2010.org.nz/wiki/Miniconfs/Distro_Summit > > and I was wondering if we had anyone who was going to be able to go there. I'd be happy to volunteer to go if someone wants to fund the trip ;) > anyone in NZ/AU who might be a good fit? Dave A, Nigel Jones, and Ben come to mind. josh From dennis at ausil.us Mon Sep 14 17:08:01 2009 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:08:01 -0500 Subject: distro summit at lca In-Reply-To: <20090914164316.GB2632@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <20090914164316.GB2632@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <200909141208.10735.dennis@ausil.us> On Monday 14 September 2009 11:43:16 am Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:07:24PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > > I noticed this: > > > > http://www.lca2010.org.nz/wiki/Miniconfs/Distro_Summit > > > > and I was wondering if we had anyone who was going to be able to go > > there. > > I'd be happy to volunteer to go if someone wants to fund the trip ;) > > > anyone in NZ/AU who might be a good fit? > > Dave A, Nigel Jones, and Ben come to mind. Im always willing to go home if someone is paying. but id need to actually spend a week in Oz to go home :) But we do have a few folks in Australia that would be good to represent us. Dennis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Sep 14 17:16:51 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:16:51 -0700 Subject: distro summit at lca In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1252948611.6759.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 12:07 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > I noticed this: > > http://www.lca2010.org.nz/wiki/Miniconfs/Distro_Summit > > and I was wondering if we had anyone who was going to be able to go > there. > > anyone in NZ/AU who might be a good fit? > > Sounds like something I should attend, but that's not going to happen on my own dime :/ If I went, I'd be sure to submit a talk or two to LCA itself. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mspevack at redhat.com Mon Sep 14 17:32:22 2009 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: distro summit at lca In-Reply-To: <20090914164316.GB2632@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <20090914164316.GB2632@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: >> anyone in NZ/AU who might be a good fit? > > Dave A, Nigel Jones, and Ben come to mind. Seems to me like we should try to make sure that our best Fedora people who are already in Australia or New Zealand should be the ones who lead Fedora's representation at the event. So to the three of you listed above -- what are your thoughts? --Max From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 17:36:56 2009 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:36:56 +0200 Subject: distro summit at lca In-Reply-To: References: <20090914164316.GB2632@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <7f692fec0909141036n6e14a777ma8795b65aaabd3dc@mail.gmail.com> 2009/9/14 Max Spevack : > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: > >>> anyone in NZ/AU who might be a good fit? >> >> Dave A, Nigel Jones, and Ben come to mind. > > Seems to me like we should try to make sure that our best Fedora people who > are already in Australia or New Zealand should be the ones who lead Fedora's > representation at the event. > > So to the three of you listed above -- what are your thoughts? Jens Petersen is also in the area. -Yaakov From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Sep 14 18:18:21 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:18:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: distro summit at lca In-Reply-To: References: <20090914164316.GB2632@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Max Spevack wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > anyone in NZ/AU who might be a good fit? > > > > Dave A, Nigel Jones, and Ben come to mind. > > Seems to me like we should try to make sure that our best Fedora people who > are already in Australia or New Zealand should be the ones who lead Fedora's > representation at the event. > > So to the three of you listed above -- what are your thoughts? > Nigel is a good bloke[1]. -Mike [1] If they don't say bloke there then s/bloke/mate/ with my apologies. From nigjones at redhat.com Mon Sep 14 21:54:02 2009 From: nigjones at redhat.com (Nigel Jones) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:54:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: distro summit at lca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <10909511.21252965412426.JavaMail.nigjones@njones.bne.redhat.com> ----- "Mike McGrath" wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Max Spevack wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > > anyone in NZ/AU who might be a good fit? > > > > > > Dave A, Nigel Jones, and Ben come to mind. > > > > Seems to me like we should try to make sure that our best Fedora > people who > > are already in Australia or New Zealand should be the ones who lead > Fedora's > > representation at the event. > > > > So to the three of you listed above -- what are your thoughts? > > > > Nigel is a good bloke[1]. > > -Mike > > [1] If they don't say bloke there then s/bloke/mate/ with my > apologies. Thanks Mike for the endorsement, as I'm a kiwi, 'bloke' is fine... now if I was an aussie... it'd be mate... mate. :) Personally I'd love to go and represent Fedora if I have the chance to. I also think that Fedora missing this event would be quite bad (I say that because I'm sure the other distros will be there). Now let me explain why: * Wellington (Where LCA2010 is this year) is the NZ Capital City, so there are lot of Govt type folks who I think are always interested in things that are free these days - I'm assuming that a few of them are going to make their way to check out LCA. * Wellington also has quite a strong open source community, so showing off Fedora to these people can do nothing but help Fedora. - Nigel From pchestek at redhat.com Tue Sep 15 14:07:20 2009 From: pchestek at redhat.com (Pamela Chestek) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:07:20 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <20090908211627.51f25215@c-ccom.com> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> <20090909002942.GR17775@localhost.localdomain> <20090908211627.51f25215@c-ccom.com> Message-ID: <4AAF9F98.3010808@redhat.com> All, Sorry for the delay in response; I took ill on Wednesday and finally made it back to work yesterday. Thanks for your comments, again they were very helpful. I've added mine below and I've also updated the wiki version of the agreement with some of the changes so you can see them in the actual document. Also, just to confirm for Richard, we'll be adding this sentence to the TLA and the Trademark Guidelines: "The '?' symbol should be placed after the first or most prominent use of the FEDORA Mark and the 'TM' should appear after the first or most prominent use of the Infinity design logo unless your editorial convention is never to use symbols with any company's marks, including your own." I can't add it to the wiki version of the agreement because it's on an exhibit, although the original I have on my computer has been amended. We just have to coordinate adding it to the Trademark Guidelines also, but we will. Scott Glaser wrote on 09/08/2009 07:44 PM: > Paul, > > I see four issues with the document in its current state: > > 1. There is no verbage defining what is cause for "termination or > expiration of the License". It would be good if examples were included > in the document explaining > what is cause for termination or expiration of the license. Paragraph 3, "Termination," defines what the main reasons for termination of the agreement are. They are (1) material breach after notice and (2) when there is a legal claim. There are two other paragraphs that had also mentioned termination, the former "Content Control" paragraph, reworked as discussed below, and Paragraph 11, "Partial Invalidity." In paragraph 11, a party can terminate the license if the contract goes to court and it is so changed by the court that it "unreasonably compromises the rights or increase the liabilities" of a party. The paragraph was originally written just in favor of Licensor but I changed the paragraph to make it apply to either party. I removed two sentences in paragraph 6: "Licensor reserves the right to terminate this Agreement as a result of any misuse by Licensee of any Trademark. Licensee agrees that the Licensee will incorporate the appropriate ? or TM after the use of the Trademark as described in the Licensor's Trademark Guidelines." I hope that eliminates some of the concerns about undue termination. A contract is generally considered "expired" when the term of the contract is over. In this case, though, it renews automatically unless one party takes a positive action to end it, which is sending a notice letter 30 days in advance of the anniversary date. So it expires at the end of the term, provided notice is given. In summary, there should be only four events that might cause the contract to end: material breach after notice; a legal claim; partial invalidity; and the end of term assuming 30 days' notice has been provided. If there are any other places I've missed please let me know. > 2. Why is there no verbiage in the TLA that the the registrant of > the domain name would be reimbursed for their remaining expenses > (domain registration/transfer fees) if the domain is registered for X > amount of time and that time exceeds the life of the license? > I think this would foster a better relationship with the community by > doing so, as the expenses would be trivial to the Licensor should a > domain need to be turned over. > If the termination is because the licensee has materially breached the agreement, it doesn't seem appropriate for Fedora to pay a breaching party for the domain name. Any payment would also be out of Fedora's budget, so it's their judgment on under what circumstances and what amount would be appropriate. But I agree that it's probably a trivial amount, so it shouldn't be a hurdle either way. > 3. What is done if the trademark is sold or the licensor goes out of > business? > > Big question here, but it should be addressed in the agreement. If the trademark (or Red Hat) is sold, the new trademark owner would acquire these licenses also. It would then have the benefits and burdens of the contracts. I believe the way the contract is currently written is as favorable as it can be for the licensee. Often a trademark license will terminate immediately on change of control of a company, which isn't the case here. If Red Hat goes out of business, then the trademark would be an asset of the bankrupt company and disposed of in the bankruptcy. There are special rules that apply in bankruptcies that would override any effort in the contract to control what happens. >> Trademark Control: might be a better title for that section as it is >> what is being discussed. Changed. >> However I also believe that was an incomplete thought I jotted down, >> I meant to make this two points: >> >> 4. What would be defined as objectionable by the Licensor? >> >> I think that this is self explanatory we need to know what would be >> considered objectionable by the Licensor. In a situation where there is content that the Fedora Project or Red Hat might find objectionable, they would have to identify how that content was a material breach of the terms of the agreement. One place would be the sentence that says "Licensee may not make available at the Domain Name(s) or Web Pages any content that is unlawful, defamatory, infringing, obscene, fraudulent, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable and may not disparage Licensor, Licensor's products, or the Fedora Project." These words and phrases - "unlawful," "defamatory," "infringing," "obscene," "fraudulent," "hateful," "racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable" and "disparaging" - for the most part define specific types of legal wrongs requiring specific elements of proof. For example, defamation requires a false statement, so if there's no falsity there's no defamation, no matter how much Red Hat or the Fedora community as a whole might not like the statement. So there are contractual limits on what Red Hat can claim is a material breach. I have also removed the part of the sentence that said "and may not disparage Licensor, Licensor's products, or the Fedora Project." I expect that's one phrase that was most offensive, and also subject to more legal ambiguity than the other words, so I removed it. So I've removed the "disparagement" portion and I've removed a couple of sentences (one in paragraph 6 described above and one in paragraph 5 described below) that perhaps could have been used to claim material breach for merely critical language. I'm hoping that removing these alleviates the majority of your concerns about unfettered behavior by Red Hat or Fedora. If there are other spots still remaining in the contract that you believe Red Hat or Fedora could misuse to terminate the contract, please let me know. I'm also happy to have more discussion on how we might be able to define what would be unobjectionable if you let me know what kinds of things you believe might aggravate Red Hat or Fedora but that shouldn't be a basis for termination. For example, constructive criticism of Fedora Project policies or processes, or of the performance of either Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Fedora distributions of Linux, are two topics that I can readily say would not be cause for termination. >> 5. If Licensor determines that Licensee is using the Trademarks >> improperly, and/or in connection with goods or services not covered >> under this Agreement, Licensor will notify Licensee, and Licensee will >> remedy the improper use within two (2) business days following receipt >> of such notice from Licensor. >> What is meant by improper usage of the trademark and/or in connection >> with goods or services not covered >> under this Agreement? Does that mean if the Licensor does not agree >> with the content of our site based on the topic heading (Content >> Control) that the license could be revoked? Or if we are not following >> the trademark guidelines to the letter that the license could be >> revoked? Keep in mind this applies to many of the sites out there that >> cover topics that can not be handled by the Fedora Project proper (i.e. >> Third Party drivers). I see your point; the sentence created ambiguity where none was intended. I took the two sentences out entirely. >> Also on point 5; two business days is a pretty aggressive schedule for >> hobbyist sites, I think five business days may be more amiably >> accepted by the community as a whole as most of us do this in our spare >> time and with real life commitments two days may become an issue >> depending on the nature of the request. >> I agree, it's been changed to five. Let me know if there's anything I missed, Pam From stickster at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 15:13:02 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:13:02 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AAF9F98.3010808@redhat.com> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> <20090909002942.GR17775@localhost.localdomain> <20090908211627.51f25215@c-ccom.com> <4AAF9F98.3010808@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090915151302.GF31932@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:07:20AM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote: > All, > > Sorry for the delay in response; I took ill on Wednesday and finally > made it back to work yesterday. Thanks for your comments, again they > were very helpful. I've added mine below and I've also updated the wiki > version of the agreement with some of the changes so you can see them in > the actual document. Thanks for writing this, Pam -- it's super helpful to have this on the list. Just snipping out one part where I had a relevant comment to add: >> 2. Why is there no verbiage in the TLA that the the registrant of >> the domain name would be reimbursed for their remaining expenses >> (domain registration/transfer fees) if the domain is registered for X >> amount of time and that time exceeds the life of the license? >> I think this would foster a better relationship with the community by >> doing so, as the expenses would be trivial to the Licensor should a >> domain need to be turned over. >> > If the termination is because the licensee has materially breached the > agreement, it doesn't seem appropriate for Fedora to pay a breaching > party for the domain name. Any payment would also be out of Fedora's > budget, so it's their judgment on under what circumstances and what > amount would be appropriate. But I agree that it's probably a trivial > amount, so it shouldn't be a hurdle either way. As I told a couple people in other conversations, we didn't have a clause in the agreement with hard requirements, because it seemed kind of complicated to put in language that would allow us to reimburse in one situation, and allow us to not reimburse in others. But the way I see it, if for some reason Red Hat terminated an agreement for some reason other than breach, Fedora should reimburse a domain owner for the balance of, say, a year's registration, up to some maximum amount. I don't know what that amount should be off the top of my head, but most vendors offer registrations for < USD $25 a year. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From sonar_guy at c-ccom.com Thu Sep 17 12:29:15 2009 From: sonar_guy at c-ccom.com (Scott Glaser) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:29:15 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AAF9F98.3010808@redhat.com> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> <20090909002942.GR17775@localhost.localdomain> <20090908211627.51f25215@c-ccom.com> <4AAF9F98.3010808@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090917082915.7c0f2f89@c-ccom.com> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:07:20 -0400 Pamela Chestek wrote: SNIP > > > 2. Why is there no verbiage in the TLA that the the registrant of > > the domain name would be reimbursed for their remaining expenses > > (domain registration/transfer fees) if the domain is registered for > > X amount of time and that time exceeds the life of the license? > > I think this would foster a better relationship with the community > > by doing so, as the expenses would be trivial to the Licensor > > should a domain need to be turned over. > > > If the termination is because the licensee has materially breached > the agreement, it doesn't seem appropriate for Fedora to pay a > breaching party for the domain name. Any payment would also be out of > Fedora's budget, so it's their judgment on under what circumstances > and what amount would be appropriate. But I agree that it's probably > a trivial amount, so it shouldn't be a hurdle either way. Pamela based on your statement above and Paul's follow up below: > As I told a couple people in other conversations, we didn't have a > clause in the agreement with hard requirements, because it seemed kind > of complicated to put in language that would allow us to reimburse in > one situation, and allow us to not reimburse in others. > > But the way I see it, if for some reason Red Hat terminated an > agreement for some reason other than breach, Fedora should reimburse a > domain owner for the balance of, say, a year's registration, up to > some maximum amount. I don't know what that amount should be off the > top of my head, but most vendors offer registrations for < USD $25 a > year. Is there not a way to put in a statement that "At the Licensors discretion some registration fees my be reimbursed based on terminating the contract under favorable terms." Some examples of this may be that the Licensee may no longer wish to maintain the site and wish to transfer the domain to Redhat/Fedora as part of the contract termination and they may have some time remaining on the registration. I did not mean this to be for cases where the contract has been breached. Only in cases where the terms of the contract were met. I also agree with what Paul stated that there should also be a reasonable limit to amount that could be reimbursed, so as to prevent people from throwing up a domain just to in a couple of weeks attempt to transfer the domain in the hopes of making money. I also believe the FAB should determine what is fair and reasonable. This allows them to determine what the limit should be and/or as needed change the limit that the Fedora Project is willing to reimburse. I have also read the changes that have been made thus far on the wiki and believe that these changes greatly improve the document, however, I would like to see more input from others on the list that will be impacted by this document. People, this document affects us all not just Fedora Unity. This is the chance to get it right and then move on to doing what we do best, Spreading the word about Fedora!! V/R Scott Glaser From pchestek at redhat.com Thu Sep 17 18:12:04 2009 From: pchestek at redhat.com (Pamela Chestek) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:12:04 -0400 Subject: Red Hat Comments on License Agreement In-Reply-To: <4A985C9D.4050602@redhat.com> References: <4A982811.7030401@redhat.com> <4A984BAB.6070402@ml.shredzone.de> <4A985C9D.4050602@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AB27BF4.7060708@redhat.com> Pamela Chestek wrote on 08/28/2009 06:39 PM: > Richard Koerber wrote on 08/28/2009 05:27 PM: > >> If I would start to write "Fedora?", but would not write a trademark >> symbol >> for (let's say) "Intel", a visitor could conclude that Fedora is a >> registered >> trademark, and Intel is not. I am afraid I could then be a target for a >> trademark infringement claim from Intel. :) (Remember: German law >> applies.) >> > Do you know for a fact that this is true under German law? If you > could point me to a reference that would be very helpful. I don't > know, although I can ask German colleagues about it. The statement > you use is one that a trademark owner and its licensees would use for > their own protection (defensively), but it seems unusual to me that a > company could make an offensive claim against you for inconsistent > marking. If that's the case under German law though, we're happy to > accommodate it. > Below you will find information from a German lawyer on this topic, reproduced with permission. I am not identifying the lawyer, to avoid any suggestion that he or she is offering community members specific legal advice or representation. I don't believe any changes are needed to the agreement. We will leave in the original change, that relieves one from the duty for using the the symbol for "Fedora" so long as one doesn't use the symbol for any trademarks at all. But, I hope this provides some comfort in general that users in Germany shouldn't have to be overly concerned about liability for using the symbol. Pam Dear Pam, > > forwarded your trademark topic to me. Please > allow me to provide the following quick answer: > > 1. > > The ? symbol can be used with respect to registered CTMs (which of > course also enjoy protection in Germany) as well as on registered > German Trademarks. However, there is no obligation whatsoever to do > so. A party can freely decide whether or not to use the ? symbol. The > lack of using it does not mean that there is no registered Trademark > or that there is no license. > > Further, not using the ? symbol will also not jeopardise any cease and > desist claims or claims for damages. Courts do not hold infringers > liable to a greater extent if they infringe on a trademark which is > used in connection with the ? symbol than if they infringe on a mark > where the symbol is not being used. > > 2. > > I also see no reason why any inconsistency in using the ? symbol as > described in your email should have any negative effect. Even if > somebody out there might believe that your potential licensee has no > right in using the mark where the ? symbol is not attached, there is > no legal significance attached to that. Therefore, at least from a > legal perspective, I do not see why they should not use the ? symbol > on the trademarks licensed by you and use the footer with respect to > the others. > > 3. > > From a practical perspective, I have seen all sorts of solutions. I > have clients who generally use footers instead of the ? symbol and > others who are very keen on using the ? symbol. My own view on this is > that specifically with respect to trademarks that may be rather > suggestive, it is of advantage to always and consistently use the ? > symbol for the purpose of showing the public that the mark at issue is > not a mere product description (such as, for example, a flavor > descriptor) but a trademark. > > I hope this has been helpful. Please let me know if I can do anything > else for you. You can always call me at my extension +49 > I will of course also be happy to discuss this further with you > by telephone. > > Best regards, > From stickster at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 21:11:15 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:11:15 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-09-17 UTC 1600 Message-ID: <20090917211115.GG25010@localhost.localdomain> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-09-17 == Roll call == * Attendees: Bill Nottingham, Tom 'spot' Callaway, John Poelstra, Mike McGrath, Dennis Gilmore, Josh Boyer, Matt Domsch, Christopher Aillon, Paul Frields * Regrets: Dimitris Glezos == Last meeting == https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-09-10 == Agenda == === Brazilian Fedora site === * STATUS: ** Board requested specific changes to accommodate licensing ** Changes have been made by domain owner, minus link to projetofedora.org ** Link intended to show Brazilian community members where to interact with Fedora Ambassadors and other people who are involved with our central community * UPDATE: ** Board issue: OK to drop requirement for link to projetofedora.org? ** Board agrees, OK to drop * ACTION: Paul to send TLA once finalized === Firmware license acceptance === https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-09-10#t10_Sep_12:23 * Firmware license triggers on use, not redistribution * How can we handle informing users of the terms? (Not firstboot, that's too late) * Another Spot issue -- any answer from Legal yet? ** Intel CPU microcode firmware license doesn't trigger on use; AMD does (but it's not in Fedora yet) ** Spot: Emailed counsel to ask about it ** Counsel responds that none of the licenses currently in use (or in consideration) would require us to inform the user in advance * No further action required at this time === Commercial non-software goods license === https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-09-10#t10_Sep_13:25 * Thus far we have given only licenses for non-commercial use, but the need for a Fedora store means we should consider the alternative as well. * Bill to present some possibilities at this meeting * DISCUSSION: ** Bill presented some history and broad categories of situations the Board would find favorable and unfavorable *** Favorable **** Proceeds used to fund Fedora activities or compatible free and open source activities **** Goods sold in conjunction with Fedora software, e.g. media or preloads **** Goods sold together in a store, e.g. a variety of items offered for sale *** Unfavorable **** Goods sold as a small portion of a larger unrelated business **** Goods sold in a way that does not largely benefit the Fedora Project as a whole ** Spot clarified needs: *** Ambassadors getting custom design freebies at shows (custom design) *** Ambassadors getting stock branded stuff from local vendors (stock design) *** Random user buying a Fedora branded item and not having to pay astronomical shipping costs ** Paul: Design team tends to do a good job receiving and addressing logo/design questions ** Bill: Need a preferred vendor in each geo, local Ambassadors work with the vendor to achieve good swag quality/design ** Spot: Vendors may be doing other swag provision, beyond Fedora branded goods; they should be able to set up a Brand Fuel-like store front which the Ambassadors can monitor *** Spot: Handling the money is the hardest part (where does it go, transparency) ** Dennis: Ambassador question: "What do we do with the money we receive back?" ** Spot: First step before setting up a vendor is to go to Finance in Red Hat and ask them to help us figure out a way of doing this. ** Poelstra: Can we do an exchange of goods (free swag for shows, etc.) rather than a monetary exchange? *** Goods exchange is difficult to quantify in a way that's equitable to vendor and Fedora Project; might be more difficult than money and hard to make transparent ** Paul: Max was talking to a potential .eu vendor with the idea of a separate branded Fedora site; all proceeds go into a holding fund at the vendor that discounts goods for Ambassador use; transparency through management by Fedora people ** John: Why are we against someone making money selling Fedora goods if it spreads our brand? *** Paul: Fedora brand identity includes transparency *** Spot: Want to make sure that a portion of the profits are somehow coming back to Fedora (in a legal and manageable way) * Criteria for setting up a vendor relationship to sell non-software goods: *# Transparency to the entire process *# Everything needs to be professional: website, finished goods, good customer service, contract, etc. *# Fedora retains design control over all goods sold *# OPTIONAL: Allow design submissions from community Unanswered question around whether Fedora (can/does/wants to) receive funds * ACTION: Paul to get with Max and Red Hat Finance to get latest guidance, report by Oct. 1 == Next meeting == PROPOSED: 2009-09-24 UTC 1600 * Accepted * Next week: missing Dennis, Matt, and Bill -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From poelstra at redhat.com Fri Sep 18 13:44:05 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:44:05 -0700 Subject: Fedora's Core Purposes Message-ID: <4AB38EA5.7040107@redhat.com> I was recently reviewing this page and a number of other pages that talk about the Fedora Project (not our the Fedora distribution) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives I'm working a blog post that provides more detail on this. In the meantime, I think this page could be broken into three primary purposes and each of the bullets merged under those purposes. 1) Building and releasing a distribution 2) Building communities 3) Furthering the science (methodologies) and practice of building communities I think it is important that we place a tight limit on the number of *core* purposes. Is there anything else that the Fedora Project does that could not be captured under these three headings? Thanks, John From rdieter at math.unl.edu Fri Sep 18 13:53:07 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:53:07 -0500 Subject: Fedora's Core Purposes In-Reply-To: <4AB38EA5.7040107@redhat.com> References: <4AB38EA5.7040107@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AB390C3.8060007@math.unl.edu> John Poelstra wrote: > I was recently reviewing this page and a number of other pages that talk > about the Fedora Project (not our the Fedora distribution) > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives > > I'm working a blog post that provides more detail on this. In the > meantime, I think this page could be broken into three primary purposes > and each of the bullets merged under those purposes. > > 1) Building and releasing a distribution > 2) Building communities > 3) Furthering the science (methodologies) and practice of building > communities > > I think it is important that we place a tight limit on the number of > *core* purposes. Is there anything else that the Fedora Project does > that could not be captured under these three headings? Heck, couldn't 3 and 2 be merged? and consider adding: furthering ... blah blah... of FLOSS ? though could even go a step further and not limit it to just software, but include content (CC and all that) as well. -- Rex From rdieter at math.unl.edu Fri Sep 18 13:57:09 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:57:09 -0500 Subject: Fedora's Core Purposes In-Reply-To: <4AB390C3.8060007@math.unl.edu> References: <4AB38EA5.7040107@redhat.com> <4AB390C3.8060007@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <4AB391B5.2090308@math.unl.edu> Rex Dieter wrote: > John Poelstra wrote: >> I was recently reviewing this page and a number of other pages that >> talk about the Fedora Project (not our the Fedora distribution) >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives >> >> I'm working a blog post that provides more detail on this. In the >> meantime, I think this page could be broken into three primary >> purposes and each of the bullets merged under those purposes. >> >> 1) Building and releasing a distribution >> 2) Building communities >> 3) Furthering the science (methodologies) and practice of building >> communities >> >> I think it is important that we place a tight limit on the number of >> *core* purposes. Is there anything else that the Fedora Project does >> that could not be captured under these three headings? > > Heck, couldn't 3 and 2 be merged? > > and consider adding: > furthering ... blah blah... of FLOSS ? though could even go a step > further and not limit it to just software, but include content (CC and > all that) as well. On second thought, following the same logic, this could be considered part of 1 I guess, though a distribution may be just a natural consequence of achieving/following the FLOSS goal. -- Rex From stickster at gmail.com Fri Sep 18 14:03:12 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:03:12 -0400 Subject: Fedora's Core Purposes In-Reply-To: <4AB38EA5.7040107@redhat.com> References: <4AB38EA5.7040107@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090918140312.GL12183@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 06:44:05AM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > I was recently reviewing this page and a number of other pages that talk > about the Fedora Project (not our the Fedora distribution) > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives > > I'm working a blog post that provides more detail on this. In the > meantime, I think this page could be broken into three primary purposes > and each of the bullets merged under those purposes. > > 1) Building and releasing a distribution > 2) Building communities > 3) Furthering the science (methodologies) and practice of building > communities > > I think it is important that we place a tight limit on the number of > *core* purposes. Is there anything else that the Fedora Project does > that could not be captured under these three headings? I think those three objectives are a better collection of the Fedora Project's goals. The Project itself is more than just a distribution and our objectives ought to reflect that. The work that occurs around the objectives of building free-culture communities and identifying and documenting best practices is just as important. If needed, each of these objectives could be broken out in separate pages with some of the aspects of the objective listed in detail. That might make those purposes easier to grasp for someone trying to understand what the Fedora Project aims to do. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From tiemann at redhat.com Fri Sep 18 14:59:42 2009 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:59:42 -0400 Subject: Fedora's Core Purposes In-Reply-To: <4AB38EA5.7040107@redhat.com> References: <4AB38EA5.7040107@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AB3A05E.6000607@redhat.com> John Poelstra wrote: > I was recently reviewing this page and a number of other pages that > talk about the Fedora Project (not our the Fedora distribution) > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives > > I'm working a blog post that provides more detail on this. In the > meantime, I think this page could be broken into three primary > purposes and each of the bullets merged under those purposes. > > 1) Building and releasing a distribution Insert ^ free (as in freedom) > 2) Building communities > 3) Furthering the science (methodologies) and practice of building > communities > > I think it is important that we place a tight limit on the number of > *core* purposes. Is there anything else that the Fedora Project does > that could not be captured under these three headings? If you don't like "free", you can insert "principled" and explain that we define a set of course *values* to which our purposes are means of expression of those values. M From duffy at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 18 17:54:01 2009 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhaXLDrW4gRHVmZnk=?=) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:54:01 -0400 Subject: spins.fpo mockups complete Message-ID: <4AB3C939.7010009@fedoraproject.org> Hi, I just finished the set of mockups for spins.fpo. The original deadline was today so yay for making deadlines. :) They are available here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Spins.fpo Some caveats: - I did a KDE-specific banner graphic for the KDE pages. I can do the same for other desktop environment spins that have distinctive upstream logo marks. There is a generic solid banner design presented in the mockups as well to serve as the banner for the non-DE spins. - The text in the home and about screens for the KDE spin details is pretty much filler text. I am hoping that individual spin maintainers can help develop this content when the site is built. - I am not 100% which spins are going to be available for F12. Some of the ones in the mockup don't exist yet (e.g. Art Studio). Is a definitive list available anywhere right now? - It appears that previous version of spins are not available for all spins except for KDE and Desktop. In some cases, I've found F10 ISOs for selected spins (I believe FEL and one other). The previous KDE spins in particular appear to be split between archive.fpo and the redhat.com mirror, although only f7, f8, f10, and f11 were available - f9 nowhere to be found. This is a bit of a strange state of affairs so I'm wondering if it's just better to not mention archived versions at all. - the Spins Community page is going to rely on content that for the most part has not yet been developed. There *is* actually an interview with Chitlesh on the Fedora wiki but I'm not aware of any other content available that we could use. We may need to hold on this area of the site until content is developed. - The 'featured spin' widget in the right sidebar will need some kind of script to run it; it's intended to rotate through the spins. - Spin-specific documentation seems scattered, and it's confusing to find content on using spins vs. creating them. It's also hard because sometimes they are referred to as live media, live cds, spins, or remixes. I poured through any documents I could find using those terms and tried to merge them into one spin-users guide for the spin support page. - The about spins page content may be full of crack rock. Actually, pretty much all of the content is going to need a thorough review. :-/ Lemme know what you think! ~m From duffy at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 18 18:00:19 2009 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:00:19 -0400 Subject: spins.fpo mockups complete Message-ID: <4AB3CAB3.1070800@fedoraproject.org> Hi, I just finished the set of mockups for spins.fpo. The original deadline was today so yay for making deadlines. :) They are available here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Spins.fpo Some caveats: - I did a KDE-specific banner graphic for the KDE pages. I can do the same for other desktop environment spins that have distinctive upstream logo marks. There is a generic solid banner design presented in the mockups as well to serve as the banner for the non-DE spins. - The text in the home and about screens for the KDE spin details is pretty much filler text. I am hoping that individual spin maintainers can help develop this content when the site is built. - I am not 100% which spins are going to be available for F12. Some of the ones in the mockup don't exist yet (e.g. Art Studio). Is a definitive list available anywhere right now? - It appears that previous version of spins are not available for all spins except for KDE and Desktop. In some cases, I've found F10 ISOs for selected spins (I believe FEL and one other). The previous KDE spins in particular appear to be split between archive.fpo and the redhat.com mirror, although only f7, f8, f10, and f11 were available - f9 nowhere to be found. This is a bit of a strange state of affairs so I'm wondering if it's just better to not mention archived versions at all. - the Spins Community page is going to rely on content that for the most part has not yet been developed. There *is* actually an interview with Chitlesh on the Fedora wiki but I'm not aware of any other content available that we could use. We may need to hold on this area of the site until content is developed. - The 'featured spin' widget in the right sidebar will need some kind of script to run it; it's intended to rotate through the spins. - Spin-specific documentation seems scattered, and it's confusing to find content on using spins vs. creating them. It's also hard because sometimes they are referred to as live media, live cds, spins, or remixes. I poured through any documents I could find using those terms and tried to merge them into one spin-users guide for the spin support page. - The about spins page content may be full of crack rock. Actually, pretty much all of the content is going to need a thorough review. :-/ Lemme know what you think! ~m From mmcgrath at redhat.com Fri Sep 18 18:27:58 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:27:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: spins.fpo mockups complete In-Reply-To: <4AB3C939.7010009@fedoraproject.org> References: <4AB3C939.7010009@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: Can anyone from the websites team give any ETA's on when the mockups will be converted to usable websites? -Mike On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Hi, > > I just finished the set of mockups for spins.fpo. The original deadline was > today so yay for making deadlines. :) > > They are available here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Spins.fpo > > Some caveats: > > - I did a KDE-specific banner graphic for the KDE pages. I can do the same for > other desktop environment spins that have distinctive upstream logo marks. > There is a generic solid banner design presented in the mockups as well to > serve as the banner for the non-DE spins. > > - The text in the home and about screens for the KDE spin details is pretty > much filler text. I am hoping that individual spin maintainers can help > develop this content when the site is built. > > - I am not 100% which spins are going to be available for F12. Some of the > ones in the mockup don't exist yet (e.g. Art Studio). Is a definitive list > available anywhere right now? > > - It appears that previous version of spins are not available for all spins > except for KDE and Desktop. In some cases, I've found F10 ISOs for selected > spins (I believe FEL and one other). The previous KDE spins in particular > appear to be split between archive.fpo and the redhat.com mirror, although > only f7, f8, f10, and f11 were available - f9 nowhere to be found. This is a > bit of a strange state of affairs so I'm wondering if it's just better to not > mention archived versions at all. > > - the Spins Community page is going to rely on content that for the most part > has not yet been developed. There *is* actually an interview with Chitlesh on > the Fedora wiki but I'm not aware of any other content available that we could > use. We may need to hold on this area of the site until content is developed. > > - The 'featured spin' widget in the right sidebar will need some kind of > script to run it; it's intended to rotate through the spins. > > - Spin-specific documentation seems scattered, and it's confusing to find > content on using spins vs. creating them. It's also hard because sometimes > they are referred to as live media, live cds, spins, or remixes. I poured > through any documents I could find using those terms and tried to merge them > into one spin-users guide for the spin support page. > > - The about spins page content may be full of crack rock. Actually, pretty > much all of the content is going to need a thorough review. :-/ > > Lemme know what you think! > > ~m > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Fri Sep 18 18:27:07 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhaXLDrW4gRHVmZnk=?=) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:27:07 -0400 Subject: spins.fpo mockups complete In-Reply-To: References: <4AB3C939.7010009@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4AB3D0FB.10905@linuxgrrl.com> On 09/18/2009 02:27 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Can anyone from the websites team give any ETA's on when the mockups will > be converted to usable websites? the schedule [1] says Sep 20 - Oct 20: convert spins.fp.o and get.fp.o to html/css (hiemanshu) ~m [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009#Schedule From kevin at tummy.com Fri Sep 18 18:40:37 2009 From: kevin at tummy.com (Kevin Fenzi) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:40:37 -0600 Subject: spins.fpo mockups complete In-Reply-To: <4AB3C939.7010009@fedoraproject.org> References: <4AB3C939.7010009@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20090918124037.50daf03d@ohm.scrye.com> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:54:01 -0400 M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Hi, > > I just finished the set of mockups for spins.fpo. The original > deadline was today so yay for making deadlines. :) Cool. Thanks for all the hard work you put into this! > They are available here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Spins.fpo > > Some caveats: > > - I did a KDE-specific banner graphic for the KDE pages. I can do the > same for other desktop environment spins that have distinctive > upstream logo marks. There is a generic solid banner design presented > in the mockups as well to serve as the banner for the non-DE spins. Cool. I would love one for Xfce. ;) I would suspect LXDE would like on too (they also have a logo upsteam). > - The text in the home and about screens for the KDE spin details is > pretty much filler text. I am hoping that individual spin maintainers > can help develop this content when the site is built. Absolutely. Perhaps a post to the spins list explaining how long this should be and what it should cover would be good? I think we might add it to the spins wiki page moving forward? > - I am not 100% which spins are going to be available for F12. Some > of the ones in the mockup don't exist yet (e.g. Art Studio). Is a > definitive list available anywhere right now? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Fedora_12 AOS Spin Broffice.org Education Electronic Lab Games LXDE Xfce > - It appears that previous version of spins are not available for all > spins except for KDE and Desktop. This is because they are not mirrored, only available as torrents on our spins server. >In some cases, I've found F10 ISOs > for selected spins (I believe FEL and one other). The previous KDE > spins in particular appear to be split between archive.fpo and the > redhat.com mirror, although only f7, f8, f10, and f11 were available > - f9 nowhere to be found. This is a bit of a strange state of affairs > so I'm wondering if it's just better to not mention archived versions > at all. Yeah, perhaps not. I have no idea if the old spins versions are still on spins.fedoraproject.org and just not connected to an active torrent or not. ;( > - the Spins Community page is going to rely on content that for the > most part has not yet been developed. There *is* actually an > interview with Chitlesh on the Fedora wiki but I'm not aware of any > other content available that we could use. We may need to hold on > this area of the site until content is developed. Please let the spins sig know what kind of info is needed here. > - The 'featured spin' widget in the right sidebar will need some kind > of script to run it; it's intended to rotate through the spins. > > - Spin-specific documentation seems scattered, and it's confusing to > find content on using spins vs. creating them. It's also hard because > sometimes they are referred to as live media, live cds, spins, or > remixes. I poured through any documents I could find using those > terms and tried to merge them into one spin-users guide for the spin > support page. From a quick glance this looks good. ;) But I haven't read thought it in detail yet. > - The about spins page content may be full of crack rock. Actually, > pretty much all of the content is going to need a thorough review. :-/ yeah. > Lemme know what you think! Overall I like it. Will try and read through the content more as time permits. kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pchestek at redhat.com Fri Sep 18 19:41:56 2009 From: pchestek at redhat.com (Pamela Chestek) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:41:56 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <20090917082915.7c0f2f89@c-ccom.com> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> <20090909002942.GR17775@localhost.localdomain> <20090908211627.51f25215@c-ccom.com> <4AAF9F98.3010808@redhat.com> <20090917082915.7c0f2f89@c-ccom.com> Message-ID: <4AB3E284.6040301@redhat.com> Scott Glaser wrote on 09/17/2009 08:29 AM: > > Is there not a way to put in a statement that "At the Licensors > discretion some registration fees my be reimbursed based on terminating > the contract under favorable terms." > Thanks for the suggestion. I've amended the agreement to add at the end of Paragraph 3 these sentences: "Unless the Agreement was terminated under Paragraph 3(a), at Licensor's discretion Licensor may reimburse terminating Licensee for reasonable domain name registration fees. There will be no reimbursement available if the Agreement was terminated under Paragraph 3(a)." You can see the addition on the wiki page. Pam From sonar_guy at c-ccom.com Sat Sep 19 11:32:05 2009 From: sonar_guy at c-ccom.com (Scott Glaser) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:32:05 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AB3E284.6040301@redhat.com> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> <20090909002942.GR17775@localhost.localdomain> <20090908211627.51f25215@c-ccom.com> <4AAF9F98.3010808@redhat.com> <20090917082915.7c0f2f89@c-ccom.com> <4AB3E284.6040301@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090919073205.634d6a0d@c-ccom.com> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:41:56 -0400 Pamela Chestek wrote: > Scott Glaser wrote on 09/17/2009 08:29 AM: > > > > Is there not a way to put in a statement that "At the Licensors > > discretion some registration fees my be reimbursed based on > > terminating the contract under favorable terms." > > > Thanks for the suggestion. I've amended the agreement to add at the > end of Paragraph 3 these sentences: "Unless the Agreement was > terminated under Paragraph 3(a), at Licensor's discretion Licensor > may reimburse terminating Licensee for reasonable domain name > registration fees. There will be no reimbursement available if the > Agreement was terminated under Paragraph 3(a)." You can see the > addition on the wiki page. > > Pam Pam, I believe that you meant the addition to paragraph 3 to read as listed below: Unless the Agreement was terminated under Paragraph 3(a), at Licensor's discretion Licensor may reimburse terminating Licensee for reasonable domain name registration fees. There will be no reimbursement available if the Agreement was terminated under Paragraph 3(b). Licensee agrees to remove any Web Pages content immediately if in Licensor's sole discretion such removal is warranted. V/R Scott Glaser From thomasj at fedoraproject.org Sun Sep 20 12:59:17 2009 From: thomasj at fedoraproject.org (Thomas Janssen) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:59:17 +0200 Subject: spins.fpo mockups complete In-Reply-To: <4AB3C939.7010009@fedoraproject.org> References: <4AB3C939.7010009@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: 2009/9/18 M?ir?n Duffy : > I just finished the set of mockups for spins.fpo. The original deadline was > today so yay for making deadlines. :) > > They are available here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Spins.fpo Thanks for all the work you put into it! Those pages looks great! > Some caveats: > > - I did a KDE-specific banner graphic for the KDE pages. I really LOVE the KDE pages you made :) And i still love the tabs idea. > Lemme know what you think! Glad that *we* have you on board! -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium From jreznik at redhat.com Mon Sep 21 07:48:08 2009 From: jreznik at redhat.com (Jaroslav Reznik) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:48:08 +0200 Subject: spins.fpo mockups complete In-Reply-To: <4AB3C939.7010009@fedoraproject.org> References: <4AB3C939.7010009@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200909210948.08305.jreznik@redhat.com> On Friday 18 September 2009 19:54:01 M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Hi, > > I just finished the set of mockups for spins.fpo. The original deadline > was today so yay for making deadlines. :) Ah, deadlines ;-) I'm happy that one missed deadline != one dead developer! > They are available here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Spins.fpo Looks nice! How does get.fpo look now? How does it follow new spins mockup and sitemap - other downloads etc? I can find only old mockup and I can't imagine connection. > Some caveats: > > - I did a KDE-specific banner graphic for the KDE pages. I can do the > same for other desktop environment spins that have distinctive upstream > logo marks. There is a generic solid banner design presented in the > mockups as well to serve as the banner for the non-DE spins. > > - The text in the home and about screens for the KDE spin details is > pretty much filler text. I am hoping that individual spin maintainers > can help develop this content when the site is built. Of course, np. Is it possible to add another custom tabs (next to support, could be distinguished by slight different color etc.)? Blog aggregator with spin tags would be nice. > - I am not 100% which spins are going to be available for F12. Some of > the ones in the mockup don't exist yet (e.g. Art Studio). Is a > definitive list available anywhere right now? > > - It appears that previous version of spins are not available for all > spins except for KDE and Desktop. In some cases, I've found F10 ISOs for > selected spins (I believe FEL and one other). The previous KDE spins in > particular appear to be split between archive.fpo and the redhat.com > mirror, although only f7, f8, f10, and f11 were available - f9 nowhere > to be found. This is a bit of a strange state of affairs so I'm > wondering if it's just better to not mention archived versions at all. I'm not sure it's worth to show EOLed releases as there's now support for them. If someone really wants to download not supported releases for some reason, he probably would know where to look. > - The about spins page content may be full of crack rock. Actually, > pretty much all of the content is going to need a thorough review. :-/ > > Lemme know what you think! > > ~m > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > Jaroslav -- Jaroslav ?ezn?k Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 731 455 332 Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/ From stickster at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 18:44:15 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:44:15 -0400 Subject: Board meeting cancellation Message-ID: <20090923184415.GM31586@localhost.localdomain> The Board meeting for Thursday September 24th has been canceled. The Board will meet for its regularly scheduled public IRC meeting on Thursday, 2009-10-01, at 1600 UTC at IRC Freenode #fedora-board-meeting. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Sep 24 07:07:46 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhaXLDrW4gRHVmZnk=?=) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:07:46 -0400 Subject: www.fpo redesign status Message-ID: <4ABB1AC2.3040609@linuxgrrl.com> Hi, The original due date for the finished www.fpo mockups is this Friday. I'm on a business trip this week and it's quite clear to me now I just won't be able to make the deadline. :( Would it be okay if I tried for next Friday, Oct. 2? It should still leave 2 weeks for HTML/CSS on those pages, and the spins mocks have been done for a week so it shouldn't hold up Hiemanshu & co. since they still have those to work on. For reference our schedule is: * DONE: #Requirements gathering * DONE: #First design mockups * DONE Aug 21 - Aug 28 : gather feedback, determine metrics, usability testing for spins.fp.o (mizmo) * DONE Aug 21 - Sep 04 : gather feedback, determine metrics, usability testing for get.fp.o (mizmo) * DONE Aug 28 - Sep 20 : Final design mockups for spins.fp.o (mizmo) * Sep 04 - Sep 27 : Final design mockups for get.fp.o (mizmo) * Sep 20 - Oct 20: convert spins.fp.o and get.fp.o to html/css (hiemanshu) * Oct 20 : get spins.fp.o and get.fp.o onto infrastructure (ricky) ~m (schedule from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009) From ricky at fedoraproject.org Thu Sep 24 07:16:13 2009 From: ricky at fedoraproject.org (Ricky Zhou) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:16:13 -0400 Subject: www.fpo redesign status In-Reply-To: <4ABB1AC2.3040609@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ABB1AC2.3040609@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <20090924071613.GA606@alpha.rzhou.org> On 2009-09-24 03:07:46 AM, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > The original due date for the finished www.fpo mockups is this Friday. > I'm on a business trip this week and it's quite clear to me now I just > won't be able to make the deadline. :( Would it be okay if I tried for > next Friday, Oct. 2? It should still leave 2 weeks for HTML/CSS on those > pages, and the spins mocks have been done for a week so it shouldn't > hold up Hiemanshu & co. since they still have those to work on. Sounds good, we should have our hands full with spins.fp.o for a while anyway. Thanks for keeping us updated, Ricky -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sonar_guy at c-ccom.com Thu Sep 24 12:18:25 2009 From: sonar_guy at c-ccom.com (Scott Glaser) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:18:25 -0400 Subject: Trademark license agreement status In-Reply-To: <4AB45D0A.8020107@redhat.com> References: <20090902143230.GB12496@localhost.localdomain> <20090908194406.6c9486bd@c-ccom.com> <20090909002942.GR17775@localhost.localdomain> <20090908211627.51f25215@c-ccom.com> <4AAF9F98.3010808@redhat.com> <20090917082915.7c0f2f89@c-ccom.com> <4AB3E284.6040301@redhat.com> <20090918201756.0621ad8e@c-ccom.com> <4AB45D0A.8020107@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090924081825.1f820915@c-ccom.com> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:24:42 -0400 Pamela Chestek wrote: > Scott Glaser wrote on 09/18/2009 08:17 PM: > > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:41:56 -0400 > > Pamela Chestek wrote: > > > > > >> Scott Glaser wrote on 09/17/2009 08:29 AM: > >> > >>> Is there not a way to put in a statement that "At the Licensors > >>> discretion some registration fees my be reimbursed based on > >>> terminating the contract under favorable terms." > >>> > >>> > >> Thanks for the suggestion. I've amended the agreement to add at the > >> end of Paragraph 3 these sentences: "Unless the Agreement was > >> terminated under Paragraph 3(a), at Licensor's discretion Licensor > >> may reimburse terminating Licensee for reasonable domain name > >> registration fees. There will be no reimbursement available if the > >> Agreement was terminated under Paragraph 3(a)." You can see the > >> addition on the wiki page. > >> > >> Pam > >> > > > > Pam, > > > > I believe that you meant the addition to paragraph 3 to read as > > listed below: > > > > Unless the Agreement was terminated under Paragraph 3(a), at > > Licensor's discretion Licensor may reimburse terminating Licensee > > for reasonable domain name registration fees. There will be no > > reimbursement available if the Agreement was terminated under > > Paragraph 3(b). Licensee agrees to remove any Web Pages content > > immediately if in Licensor's sole discretion such removal is > > warranted. > > > > V/R > > > > Scott Glaser > > > > > > > > > If I'm reading correctly that you changed the second 3(a) to 3(b), I > meant it the original way. With just the first sentence, the "unless" > clause creates an ambiguous situation - what happens if it IS > terminated under 3(a)? So the second sentence was added to explain - > if it's terminated under 3(a) (material breach), you're out of luck. > Under 3(b), it might be a situation where it would be fair to pay for > the domain name, for example if it was a trademark infringement claim > against "Fedora," which wouldn't be your fault. > > If it's not clear, though, I'd welcome any suggestion to improve the > language. > > Pam > Pam, Sorry for the delay, but somehow this got snatched up by my spam filter. But Upon you explanation I re-read that section and realized I misread that entire portion. To me that verbage looks correct and good at this point. I was hoping more people would have interest in this document, however it does not appear that way. I will re-read the document one more time to ensure that I see no other obvious issue and let you know if I have any more suggestions. Thanks for you time this far in responding to our concerns. V/R Scott Glaser From stickster at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 12:31:14 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:31:14 -0400 Subject: www.fpo redesign status In-Reply-To: <20090924071613.GA606@alpha.rzhou.org> References: <4ABB1AC2.3040609@linuxgrrl.com> <20090924071613.GA606@alpha.rzhou.org> Message-ID: <20090924123114.GC17173@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 03:16:13AM -0400, Ricky Zhou wrote: > On 2009-09-24 03:07:46 AM, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > > The original due date for the finished www.fpo mockups is this Friday. > > I'm on a business trip this week and it's quite clear to me now I just > > won't be able to make the deadline. :( Would it be okay if I tried for > > next Friday, Oct. 2? It should still leave 2 weeks for HTML/CSS on those > > pages, and the spins mocks have been done for a week so it shouldn't > > hold up Hiemanshu & co. since they still have those to work on. > Sounds good, we should have our hands full with spins.fp.o for a while anyway. > > Thanks for keeping us updated, > Ricky This sounds reasonable to me too. Ricky, how is progress on the spins.fp.o HTML/CSS work? -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From christoph.wickert at googlemail.com Thu Sep 24 20:06:11 2009 From: christoph.wickert at googlemail.com (Christoph Wickert) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:06:11 +0200 Subject: www.fpo redesign status In-Reply-To: <4ABB1AC2.3040609@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ABB1AC2.3040609@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <1253822771.15420.0.camel@localhost> Am Donnerstag, den 24.09.2009, 03:07 -0400 schrieb M?ir?n Duffy: > * Sep 20 - Oct 20: convert spins.fp.o and get.fp.o to html/css Please don't forget to contact the spin owners if you need something from them (texts, graphics, etc.) TIA, Christoph From chitlesh.goorah at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 20:12:17 2009 From: chitlesh.goorah at gmail.com (Chitlesh GOORAH) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:12:17 +0200 Subject: www.fpo redesign status In-Reply-To: <1253822771.15420.0.camel@localhost> References: <4ABB1AC2.3040609@linuxgrrl.com> <1253822771.15420.0.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <50baabb30909241312q24444067w43c8f82aa92f56e4@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 24.09.2009, 03:07 -0400 schrieb M?ir?n Duffy: > >> ? ? ?* Sep 20 - Oct 20: convert spins.fp.o and get.fp.o to html/css > > Please don't forget to contact the spin owners if you need something > from them (texts, graphics, etc.) > Should not we (spin maintainers) get access to set up the text and graphics on the website ? Chitlesh Goorah From stickster at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 17:36:02 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:36:02 -0400 Subject: Aligning targets Message-ID: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> Our best statement of target audience for Fedora is found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Is_Fedora_for_me.3F We may be able to resolve, or help FESCo resolve, engineering decisions if we extend this description to include some exemplar users who better represent this target. In other words, we can draw a better picture of "Uma," "Dietrich," and "Sayyid,"[1] each representing someone for whom we want to make technical decisions. Then the questions we need to ask become, do our current processes -- be they for testing/QA, release, package updates, or what-have-you -- support those users? And how do we prioritize conflicts? -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From poelstra at redhat.com Fri Sep 25 17:43:18 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:43:18 -0700 Subject: Aligning targets In-Reply-To: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4ABD0136.1050605@redhat.com> Paul W. Frields said the following on 09/25/2009 10:36 AM Pacific Time: > Our best statement of target audience for Fedora is found here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Is_Fedora_for_me.3F First we have to be clearer about "Fedora". Are we defining a target audience for: 1) The Fedora Project 2) The Fedora Distribution Doing both at the same time will be painful and counter productive as I think we have seen already. I believe the best way forward is to end the "Overview" page after the first section and move that content to separate pages. John From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 25 17:45:48 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:45:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Aligning targets In-Reply-To: <4ABD0136.1050605@redhat.com> References: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> <4ABD0136.1050605@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, John Poelstra wrote: > Paul W. Frields said the following on 09/25/2009 10:36 AM Pacific Time: >> Our best statement of target audience for Fedora is found here: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Is_Fedora_for_me.3F > > First we have to be clearer about "Fedora". > > Are we defining a target audience for: > > 1) The Fedora Project > 2) The Fedora Distribution The distribution is the only part that I think is in contention. -sv From stickster at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 17:56:13 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:56:13 -0400 Subject: Aligning targets In-Reply-To: <4ABD0136.1050605@redhat.com> References: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> <4ABD0136.1050605@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090925175613.GA18048@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:43:18AM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > Paul W. Frields said the following on 09/25/2009 10:36 AM Pacific Time: >> Our best statement of target audience for Fedora is found here: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Is_Fedora_for_me.3F > > First we have to be clearer about "Fedora". > > Are we defining a target audience for: > > 1) The Fedora Project > 2) The Fedora Distribution > > Doing both at the same time will be painful and counter productive as I > think we have seen already. I think you're correct. I try to consistently use "Fedora" to mean "Fedora the distribution," and I use "Fedora Project" when I mean the project. However, given how they're used interchangeably by so many people I need to make a special effort to say "the Fedora distribution," which is what I said above. > I believe the best way forward is to end the "Overview" page after the > first section and move that content to separate pages. No problem with that here. Personally I like short, consistent pages -- they're easier to keep organized and, incidentally, reuse. Paul From dmalcolm at redhat.com Fri Sep 25 18:05:18 2009 From: dmalcolm at redhat.com (David Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:05:18 -0400 Subject: Aligning targets In-Reply-To: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1253901918.15577.153.camel@radiator.bos.redhat.com> On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 13:36 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Our best statement of target audience for Fedora is found here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Is_Fedora_for_me.3F > > We may be able to resolve, or help FESCo resolve, engineering > decisions if we extend this description to include some exemplar users > who better represent this target. In other words, we can draw a > better picture of "Uma," "Dietrich," and "Sayyid,"[1] each BTW, were you were going to add a footnote for "[1]"? I don't see one. [snip] Hope this is helpful Dave From stickster at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 18:49:50 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:49:50 -0400 Subject: Aligning targets In-Reply-To: <1253901918.15577.153.camel@radiator.bos.redhat.com> References: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> <1253901918.15577.153.camel@radiator.bos.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090925184950.GG18048@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 02:05:18PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 13:36 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > Our best statement of target audience for Fedora is found here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Is_Fedora_for_me.3F > > > > We may be able to resolve, or help FESCo resolve, engineering > > decisions if we extend this description to include some exemplar users > > who better represent this target. In other words, we can draw a > > better picture of "Uma," "Dietrich," and "Sayyid,"[1] each > > BTW, were you were going to add a footnote for "[1]"? I don't see one. I'm email fail today. [1] Names chosen fairly randomly to represent roles of a desktop productivity user, a developer, and a system administrator. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From notting at redhat.com Mon Sep 28 18:29:05 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:29:05 -0400 Subject: Aligning targets In-Reply-To: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090928182905.GA6972@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: > Our best statement of target audience for Fedora is found here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Is_Fedora_for_me.3F > > We may be able to resolve, or help FESCo resolve, engineering > decisions if we extend this description to include some exemplar users > who better represent this target. In other words, we can draw a > better picture of "Uma," "Dietrich," and "Sayyid,"[1] each > representing someone for whom we want to make technical decisions. > > Then the questions we need to ask become, do our current processes -- > be they for testing/QA, release, package updates, or what-have-you -- > support those users? And how do we prioritize conflicts? I'm not sure those guidelines lend themselves to particular use cases; the only one that would seem to apply would be the one about 'latest stable software', which would imply we move *too* fast right now in some cases. (And the lack of tying "latest stable" to a release means more fuel for the fewer updates/more updates debate.) Bill From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Sep 28 22:24:13 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:24:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Aligning targets In-Reply-To: <20090928182905.GA6972@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> <20090928182905.GA6972@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: > > Our best statement of target audience for Fedora is found here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Is_Fedora_for_me.3F > > > > We may be able to resolve, or help FESCo resolve, engineering > > decisions if we extend this description to include some exemplar users > > who better represent this target. In other words, we can draw a > > better picture of "Uma," "Dietrich," and "Sayyid,"[1] each > > representing someone for whom we want to make technical decisions. > > > > Then the questions we need to ask become, do our current processes -- > > be they for testing/QA, release, package updates, or what-have-you -- > > support those users? And how do we prioritize conflicts? > > I'm not sure those guidelines lend themselves to particular use cases; > the only one that would seem to apply would be the one about 'latest > stable software', which would imply we move *too* fast right now in > some cases. (And the lack of tying "latest stable" to a release means > more fuel for the fewer updates/more updates debate.) > They are very targeted towards the user, even new users at that. It's unclear to me how to turn that into an engineering effort. -Mike From poelstra at redhat.com Tue Sep 29 23:15:02 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:15:02 -0700 Subject: Aligning targets In-Reply-To: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4AC294F6.2030207@redhat.com> Paul W. Frields said the following on 09/25/2009 10:36 AM Pacific Time: > Our best statement of target audience for Fedora is found here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Is_Fedora_for_me.3F > > We may be able to resolve, or help FESCo resolve, engineering > decisions if we extend this description to include some exemplar users > who better represent this target. In other words, we can draw a > better picture of "Uma," "Dietrich," and "Sayyid,"[1] each > representing someone for whom we want to make technical decisions. > > Then the questions we need to ask become, do our current processes -- > be they for testing/QA, release, package updates, or what-have-you -- > support those users? And how do we prioritize conflicts? > > The best way I could come up with to further this discussion was to "do something" which was to update a few wiki pages.... naturally they can all be changed or reverted if no one agrees. The original page: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Overview&oldid=122251 Advanced apologies to the original creators of the Overview page, but the page is too confusing. It is trying to cover too many topics and switches back and forth between them. It starts by talking about "the Fedora Project". Then it talks about "who uses 'Fedora' " (notice we've abruptly changed subjects to the distribution), followed by several sections about the distribution and concludes by talking about the "Fedora Project". Updated page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview I've created a new version with a reduced footprint that seeks to speak directly to the questions that have not been resolved like "Who is our target audience?" Defining our target audience based on "is Fedora for me?" is too round about. We should just come out and say what it is. In turn I've also taken a shot at improving the Objectives page to better align with our core objectives. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives so it corresponds more with my earlier post about http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/blog_posts/2009-09-18/fedora-purpose-clickable-2009-09-18.html I think we still have a little work to do. I'm not sure all the bullets in this section are in harmony with each other. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives#Creating_a_Free_.28as_in_Freedom.29_distribution John From stickster at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 15:16:30 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:16:30 -0400 Subject: Reminder: Fedora Board IRC meeting 1600 UTC 2009-10-01 Message-ID: <20090930151630.GA21602@localhost.localdomain> The Board is holding its monthly public meeting on Thursday, October 1, 2009, at 1600 UTC on IRC Freenode. For this meeting, the public is invited to do the following: * Join #fedora-board-meeting to see the Board's conversation. * Join #fedora-board-questions to discuss topics and post questions. This channel is read/write for everyone. The moderator will voice people from the queue, one at a time, in the #fedora-board-meeting channel. We'll limit time per voice as needed to give everyone in the queue a chance to be heard. The Board may reserve some time at the top of the hour to cover any agenda items as appropriate. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting! (See also previous announcement here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-September/msg00050.html) -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From notting at redhat.com Wed Sep 30 16:33:56 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:33:56 -0400 Subject: Aligning targets In-Reply-To: <4AC294F6.2030207@redhat.com> References: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> <4AC294F6.2030207@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090930163356.GE31201@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said: > I think we still have a little work to do. I'm not sure all the > bullets in this section are in harmony with each other. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives#Creating_a_Free_.28as_in_Freedom.29_distribution The problem is that those bullets aren't guiding, which is sort of what Mike is asking for. None of those things implies anything about the target market or target userbase. The closest one is about how Fedora is F/OSS and therefore not interested in working on/supporting/etc. closed-source software - but that's not a point you can make design decisions around. You could claim 'usability and a "just works" philosophy' is a design point, but that applies just as much to Asterisk or TurboGears as it does to Firefox and GNote. Bill From poelstra at redhat.com Wed Sep 30 17:17:46 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:17:46 -0700 Subject: Aligning targets In-Reply-To: <20090930163356.GE31201@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20090925173602.GV18048@localhost.localdomain> <4AC294F6.2030207@redhat.com> <20090930163356.GE31201@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AC392BA.1010507@redhat.com> Bill Nottingham said the following on 09/30/2009 09:33 AM Pacific Time: > John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said: >> I think we still have a little work to do. I'm not sure all the >> bullets in this section are in harmony with each other. >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives#Creating_a_Free_.28as_in_Freedom.29_distribution > > The problem is that those bullets aren't guiding, which is sort of what > Mike is asking for. None of those things implies anything about the target > market or target userbase. The closest one is about how Fedora is F/OSS and That was the point of my previous post (cut from above). We are going around in circles because we aren't being direct. Expecting people to make the right inference hasn't worked. > therefore not interested in working on/supporting/etc. closed-source > software - but that's not a point you can make design decisions around. > You could claim 'usability and a "just works" philosophy' is a design point, > but that applies just as much to Asterisk or TurboGears as it does to > Firefox and GNote. > To sharpen the Objectives we first need to finish: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Target_Audience John From pchestek at redhat.com Wed Sep 30 19:21:08 2009 From: pchestek at redhat.com (Pamela Chestek) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:21:08 -0400 Subject: Further Revision to Trademark License Agreement Message-ID: <4AC3AFA4.4050101@redhat.com> All, In private communication with one community member, a concern was expressed that, if the contract was terminated under section 3(b) (termination in case of a legal claim), the termination of the contract would also end the duty to indemnify. That was not Red Hat's intention, so I have therefore added a "Survival" paragraph to the agreement. New paragraph 9 says: "Survival. The parties? rights and obligations, which by their nature would continue beyond the termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, obligations with respect to indemnification and actions affecting the validity of the mark, shall survive such termination." This is a catch-all way to ensure that all the duties under the contract that, by their nature, should continue after the contract terminates will continue. "Indemnification" is mentioned as a specific example, so there will be no doubt that the duty to indemnify for events that occurred during the contract would continue after termination. The new paragraph has been added to the wiki version of the license for you to see. Pam -- Pamela S. Chestek Senior IP Attorney Red Hat, Inc. 1801 Varsity Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 919-754-4473 pchestek at redhat.com