Heads up, slight tree path change

[Douglas McClendon]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> As part of a continuing effort to make derivative distributions of
> Fedora easier, we're making the path names within the tree a bit more
> generic.  Instead of os/Fedora/<packages>  the path will now be
> os/Packages/<packages>. 

This seems like a good time to bring up this question regarding 
derivative distributions-

Is it okay - (and I'm pretty sure the current position is yes, but I'd 
like reassurance, and ideally a wiki/faq entry if none exists already)

- to include the fedora-release rpm (not fedora-logos) in a derivative 
distribution?

If not, what I am more specifically interested in, is the fedora rpm gpg 
key, and the yum configurations that point at fedora servers.

In some sense, this facilitates derivative distributions 'leeching' 
resources from fedora.  But it seems like this is currently allowed, and 
given the moves to encourage derivative distros, I suspect fedora does 
not have a problem with this.

Then the final question of course would be, since derivative distros of 
this nature are using binaries actually built by fedora, will fedora be 
willing to go the extra mile and offer written assurance to keep the 
source rpms available for 3 years, or whatever the whole fallout from 
the gpl-derivative-distro thread of recent history was.

I mean, it seems plain silly to force derivative distros, that are using 
binaries compiled and provided by fedora, to maintain a mirror of the 
source rpms.  Especially if as above, the yum configs in the derivative 
distros are pointing at fedora servers anyway.

Thoughts?  Pointers to existing wiki/faqs that -

google://"fedora derivative distributions policy"

didn't make utterly obvious?

Thanks,

-dmc