Fedora spin from RpmFusion

Douglas McClendon dmc.fedora at filteredperception.org
Sat Sep 29 01:19:15 UTC 2007

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>  >
>>> (The following really has been asked and answered in numerous times 
>>> before...)
>> But technology and published legal guidelines change...
> Not every other week in this context.
>>>> C. An respin with no affiliation with Red Hat/Fedora is made that 
>>>> include
>>>>    the "questionable packages and repos" and the user does not have to
>>>>    do any work from his half ( work out of the box solution )
>>> If this is done, it should be rebranded and not called Fedora.
>> 'should' is one of those words...
>> By my reading of the current trademark guidelines (before they 
>> disappeared from
>> http://rhold.fedoraproject.org/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/
>> it is totally possible (with a little initrd guru-dom) to repackage 
>> the fedora-8-livecd iso (other isos too, but I'll use this as an 
>> example), such that mp3 and rpmfusion(or other arbitrary repos) work 
>> 'out of the box'.

Just make a new iso, that contains the old iso as is, with a new initrd 
and bootloader, that present the user with two choices-

a) "boot the official unmodified fedora-8-live image"


b) "boot the official fedora-8-live image, patched with mp3 support and 
software repository configuration that the fedora organization does not 
support or condone in any way"

> I believe you are incorrect in this reading given everything I heard on 
> this topic so far.
> Rahul

Ok, thanks to MikeMC, I can defend my position from


Shipping Fedora™ code unmodified from the original download with 
separate patches that may be applied by the end user at his/her 
discretion is not a modification of the original code, provided:


       The original Fedora™ code is intact and identifiable at the time 
of installation and on the media on which the code is delivered;

       The patches are provided independent of the original Fedora™ code 
and are identifiable on the media on which the code is delivered;

       The end user is given the discretion as to whether to install the 
patches; and

       Any marketing materials related to such a distribution make clear 
that the vendor is providing patches which, if installed by the user, 
will modify the Fedora™ code from its original form.

Please tell me how my above thoeretical repackaging of fedora does not 
fall into this *very* explicitly permitted scenario.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list