OT: Media format patents and commercial installations

[David Timms]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 10:04 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> On 5/26/06, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>> Nothing stops you from modifying Fedora and including non-free software
>>> for OEM systems. Trademark guidelines do not allow this system to be
>>> called Fedora anymore though.  There has been discussions in fedora-
>>> marketing list about this
Thanks, I'll take a look at the archives.

>> The way I read
>> http://fedora.redhat.com/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html
>>
>> An OEM can market a system as Fedora + value addon under certain conditions.
>>
>> <quote>
>> The original Fedora™ code is intact and identifiable at the time of
>> installation and on the media on which the code is delivered;
>>
>> a)
>> The patches are provided independent of the original Fedora™ code and
>> are identifiable on the media on which the code is delivered;
>> </quote>
>>
>> I read this to mean that when an OEM system is delivered/marketed what
>> comes in Fedora  and what the OEM is providing as a value addon are
>> clearly delineated. So in the case of media, the OEM addons are on
>> seperate media than the Fedora software.
Would an OEM need to supply the Fedora DVD and their addons install 
media even when the hardware has no CD/DVD drive ?  Would a required 
separate network install server (ie ks over ftp) suffice ?

>> In the case of a pre-installed system, there must be a breakdown as to
>> what is provided as a value add-on before the system is purchased, and
I can see how this helps for example: third party patent encumbered or 
buggy packages because it is made clear that Fedora did not make them.

>> it must be clear in the packaging that certain packages are OEM
>> provided and not Fedora.
So, is this so the end user can know where they need to go for support 
for their box ?

>> <quote>
>> b)
>> The end user is given the discretion as to whether to install the patches; and
>> </quote>
>>
>> I read this to mean that the OEM must provide a means by which to
>> opt-out of any value-added software pre-install, so that the purchaser
>> can choose a stock Fedora operating system install.  I would go
>> further and say this should be demanded as a no-cost option to the
>> purchaser.
Interesting angle. Without the addons/packages the box is a pure Fedora 
box. It can no longer do what the value-add provided. One advantage I 
can see is if an OEM where making a very price competitive box with 
addons, the end user could buy the box just to get the cheap hardware 
pre-installed with Fedora, and not require the effort to 
build/install/test a basic Fedora system. Is this why this guideline was 
framed ?

Or is it so that the end user could revert to a base Fedora system so 
that the box becomes "supportable" (eg if the box was having problems) ?

>> <quote>
...
>> Is my interpretation of these conditions wrong?
> 
> Seems to be right. The requirement is a clear segregation of what is
> part of Fedora and what is not.
It also feels like a shortcut for competitors to an oem to get to the 
same stage of development. Is the segregation in generalities eg: OEM 
box has media-player-central-1.0.1.rpm and media-codecs-45.3 ? Or does 
this disclosure need to cover all config files that are changed from a 
default install eg. dns / ip / smb / ftp / desktop layout / menus ?
{like rpm -Va}

Also, thanks to all who have taken part in this discussion, it has been 
really informative :)

DaveT