Fedora derivatives branding discussion -- the root problems (revisited/simplified)

[Bryan J. Smith]

Toshio Kuratomi <toshio at tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
> I agree that obvious, easy tools will cause people to "do the right
> thing" most of the time. 

Yes.  We need to put forth the effort to come up with extra logo sets
and disclaimer/text changes, and make that a simple switch in
Anaconda.  Again, you force people to be unable to run any Anaconda
tools until they set a config setting.

> Are we still discussing the policy that those tools need to
> fulfill, though?

Yes.  I just wanted to point out that this is a directly related
detail.

> I have one new question:
> How will RawHide/FE-devel packages fit into this scheme?

It's not FC+FE, so it's not Fedora(TM).

Again, I suggested "Unofficial Fedora(TM) Third Party" as long as it
is still 100% Redistributable.  I'm sure someone could come up with a
better name.

My argument was to put something into a standard logo/disclaimer set
for the Anaconda Tools -- different than the official Fedora
releases.

> RawHide is a baby eater so a redistribution of Fedora that uses
> these packages could well be less stable than usual.

As anything that is not stock, binary equivalent or subset of FC+FE.

> OTOH, sometimes fixes for problems only appear in RawHide or take
> quite some time to be pushed back to the previous Core release.
> So the, "Fedora Bleeding GNOME Linux", "Fedora AIGLX Linux", or
> "Fedora r300 LiveCD Linux" would pretty much have to pull from
> RawHide.  (Note that only one of my three examples would be
> targetted at RawHide long term.  The others would be folded back
> into mainline in FC+1 or FC+2.  I think a lot of RawHide targetted
> redistributions would be this way; short-term RawHide, long-term
> either the need goes away or they retarget against a Fedora Core
> branch after the newer packages go in.)

Again, come up with an umbrella for them to all fall under, as long
as they are 100% redistributable with no legal issues.

> Another issue is that RawHide binary packages will disappear after
> a few new pushes so the versions of packages these distributions
are
> based on won't be available from official Fedora Repositories
> anymore.  The same thing could potentially happen with Fedora
> Updates, though, which I am assuming would be included in the
> "FC + FE" package set.

Again, there are no guarantees with "Unofficial Fedora(TM) Third
Party" or whatever we call it.

> I started this post thinking RawHide should be excluded but now I'm
> more divided....

I think anything that is 100% Redistributable with no legal issues
(e.g., not Livna.ORG, etc...) is a candidate for this labeling.  We
want to promote people to use Fedora(TM) as a solid base, as long as
they are true to the 100% redistributable and litigation-free of it.

It's just not Fedora(TM), but Unofficial Fedora(TM) Third Party.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith   Professional, Technical Annoyance
b.j.smith at ieee.org    http://thebs413.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------
I'm a Democrat.  No wait, I'm a Republican.  Hmm,
it seems I'm just whatever someone disagrees with.