Fedora derivatives branding discussion

[Chitlesh GOORAH]

> Greg and I had an interesting conversation with some of our lawyers not
> too long ago in which we went to them with the idea of having two marks --
> one "official" mark that was strongly protected, and a second mark that
> was more open and permissive in its terms.

#001
For the second one, we can propose a different fedora-logos-XXX.rpm.
Thus as it's said
here http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/page5.html
there wont corruption for mere deletion of certain files.

If we don't propose another fedora-logos-XXX.rpm, guidelines will be enough.

#002
Last time, for Kadischi I came up with some Legal stuffs due to some
requests on the matter.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal

Its contents are what we are proposing for the moment.

#003
To my guess, these are some areas  of thoughts we must be working on
for branding:
*built from
- Fedora Core, Extras Packages only
- Fedora Core, Extras Packages with own packages which are abiding
Fedora Policies.
   ---> ask to push to Extras
- Fedora Core, Extras Packages with propriety softwares
   ---> I know Livna is not officially supported. but at least we
might as them to push their propriety packages over there. But still
it's against Fedora Policy.
- from sources provided by fedora
*Derived From Fedora
* a fork of Fedora

#004, would there be special marks for product of livecd tool
(kadischi) provided by the Fedora Project?

If yes, I should work on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Legal as well.

Chitlesh
--
http://clunixchit.blogspot.com