output redistribution issues again, was Re: [Fedora-livecd-list] Kadischi: roadmap from Board meeting ?

[Jane Dogalt]

--- Skunk Worx <skunkworx at verizon.net> wrote:

> Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> > Hold it, hold it, hold it.
> > 
> > Responses inline.
> > 
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Jane Dogalt wrote:
> > 
> >> Chitlesh,
> >>
> >> And I suspect from a 'legal' point of view, basically anything that goes
> >> any distance beyond changing the package selection from purely within
> >> the core and extras repository.  Because the instant you do anything
> >> complicated like adding your own package that hasn't vetted the
> >> core/extras quality control inclusion process, you are releasing a piece
> >> of software whose quality will reflect on the fedora name, due to
> >> implicit association.  Certainly if (a) default fedora boot/background
> >> logos/images/trademarks are left in place.  And even to a lesser extent,
> >> if the fedora-logos and anaconda images packages are left in place (am I
> >> missing anything?). ***
> > 
> > We're not the least bit worried about implicit association.  Not at all.  
> > It's free software.  The only thing we're worried about is *explicit* 
> > association.  That's why we protect the marks themselves so rigorously.
> >
> 
>  From an end user perspective, I'd like to see a final word on the 
> Kadischi project stating that kadischi users can make isos and keep 
> Fedora logos and trademarks intact...even when we include our 
> proprietary kernel drivers and software.

I too would like to see this in a wiki/faq/doc.

> 
> We put our own software and drivers under /usr on the DVDs and your 
> logos are plainly visible. In the past we have been proud to say we use 
> Fedora for development and release. A lot of people have tried Fedora 
> after seeing our demos. Does Fedora treat a bootable hard drive image 
> and a bootable iso differently?

Thats an interesting angle.  I started most of this discussion because of what
I saw as the grey area of "is a livecd based on fedora a derivative
distribution".

You're angle is very interesting and makes the question "is a livecd a
derivative distribution, or is it an instance of installation".

Then of course, the question is whether fedora would have any issues with
having their marks on a "ghosted" install image that someone put online (under
a non-fedora name).

Personally I suspect the real answer is that we won't get a clear answer, and
until someone gives a business reason for redhat/fedora to start putting their
lawyers on the clock, the issue will just be ignored, or left in a somewhat
ambiguous state.

As I've mentioned in my past posts however, I do see both sides of the issue. 
On the one hand, you want to encourage people to use fedora.  On the other
hand, if you let them package up "mogrifications", then it is entirely possible
that their mogrifcations will be of such poor quality (bugs, usability) that
they will reflect badly on the brand.

> 
> When are you going to enforce on hard drives? I have the NVIDIA driver 
> and the euro MP3 package added to my home machine...as well as a bunch 
> of proprietary. Do I have to remove all your logos from my hard drive 
> install? Why is the iso so different? Are you planning to use DRM to 
> insure only core/extras are installed if logos and trademarks are present?
> 
> My brother uses RHEL and proprietary cards, drivers, and software in his 
> lab. RH helped the vendor a few times. No one has asked them to remove 
> all RH logos and trademarks. Is Fedora being held to a different 
> standard than RHEL because it's free?
> 
> In the future, will I even be able to develop with Fedora? Maybe a core 
> dump will show up in my home directory, or a segfault in the debugger. 
> Does that reflect negatively on the Fedora Project? Who about 
> misspellings in a OO document? Or an errant macro in the spreadsheet? 
> Bad SQL in postgres?

Yeah, we get the hyperbole already.  

> 
> MS, SGI, Sun have never asked us to remove their logos and trademarks. 
> We legally distribute hard drive installs of their OS and our software, 
> on disk packs, without any complaint, ever, from any of them.

They may not have complained, but did they really know you were redistributing?
 I bet that if you were paying $$ per seat, or as part of a multi-seat license
agreement, that the $$ more than offset any of the above concerns.  And I bet
if you bought a 1000 seat RHEL license, they wouldn't mind at all what you did
to 1000 install images of their software.

-jdog

> 
> ---
> John
> 
> --
> Fedora-livecd-list mailing list
> Fedora-livecd-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com