Proposal: fedora-distributor-list

[Paul Iadonisi]

On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 18:27, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Thomas Chung (tchung at openwebmail.com) said: 
> > See this link for more information -  http://distribution.openoffice.org/cdrom/
> 
> One thing you may be interested in is the trademark guidelines at:
> 
> http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/
> 
> They are different than the guidelines were for Red Hat Linux.

  I know it's a bit a off topic to extend this discussion, (perhaps we
should start a fedora-legal list), but I don't find these guidelines any
more permissive than those for the Red Hat trademark itself.  Anyone
care to point out any difference in substance between the above link and
http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/index.html?
  A bit disappointing, if you ask me.  Frankly, I find it totally
strange to call it something like "Fedora Core" if no one can say that
his product is "based on Fedora Core."  Might as well leave of the
"Core" altogether and just call it Fedora.

/me is a little bit bummed

  HOWEVER, I'm not as bummed as I was planning on if this turned out to
be the case. ;-)  Desktop/LX, Lycoris, Xandros, and Lindows all get
along just fine without saying "based on Debian," so I think the
different players can get along fine building on Fedora Core without
ever using the name.
  But still having to create a whole slew of new images to replace
anaconda-images and redhat-logos is highly discouraging.  So consider
this my plea for any artists who might want to contribute to The Fedora
Project to come up with generic non-trademarked replacements.  That way,
at least those of us who can't afford to hire a graphics artist can at
least only replace a few images at a time before modifying and
redistributing the release with our own branding.

-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets