Fedora derivatives branding discussion

[Andre Nogueira]

Hi,

I think people are mixing several things, hence the confusion...

When talking about a "Fedora-based distro", there are actual three
possible things:

1) A distro which uses ONLY packages which are in Fedora's repository
(including Extras)

2) A distro which uses packages which are NOT in Fedora's repositories
(not even Extras), but all the packages it uses are free (as in
speech).

3) Same as 2), but uses proprietary packages (Macromedia Flash,
Acrobat Reader, MP3 codec, etc).

I believe everyone agrees that 1) is a Fedora-based distro, and that
3) could never be accepted because it uses proprietary software.
As such, we only have to discuss 2).

Regarding 2), there are two possible results:

1) Submit the packages to Fedora Extras, and problem solved

2) Allow the distro to be "Fedora-Based" even though the packages
aren't in Fedora Extras.

Seeing that it's free software we're talking about, I see no problem
in having to make them available in Extras - after all, the rest of
the community wins with this, because they can get them from there
too.

What do you think?

Thanks,

Andre

On 4/20/06, Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 02:09:02PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > That is no longer based on Fedora.  That includes parts of Fedora, but
> > adds to it, and thus cannot be claimed to be Fedora.  Get the package in
> > Extras (;
>
> What? That makes no logical sense. You're saying that something takes a
> _base_ of Fedora and builds on that base by adding additional packages is
> some way not _based_ on Fedora?
>