From Fedora Project Wiki
The meeting was held in IRC Freenode #fedora-board-meeting at 1600 UTC.
Meeting Summary
- New firmware licensing change: TomCallaway/ProposedFirmwareLicensePolicyChange
- More narrowly focused on firmware exceptions
- More explicit about terms that would make a software license unacceptable but are tolerated in a firmware license
- Does not change any current package inclusion in Fedora, or packaging requirements
- RESOLVED: Board agrees with licensing change
- ACTION: Spot to bring question about how to handle user acceptance of firmware licensing
Questions and Answers
- inode0: anyone read the new drupal trademark policy governing domain names? I'm still curious why Fedora can't grant this without a TLA if certain conditions are met by the community member ... http://drupal.com/trademark
- mchua: spot mentioned a "Fedora magazine" as a case of publication - I wanted to note that this issue may come up again soon, and would like to know what a publishing house (Linux Pro Magazine, or otherwise) would have to ask permission for, and what they could do without asking.
- skvidal: what is the boards feelings on the chilling effects the TLA seems to already be creating? Are we worried that this damage may be greater than the damage of trademark dilution?
- EvilBob: can't the trademark holder simply make a statement as to what is allowed rather than the solution that is being "strong armed" on to the community?
- inode0: Has the board ever granted a non-software goods license to anyone for commercial use?
Other tasks:
- stickster: See whether Legal is able and willing to publish information about cases of trademark infringement where our enforcement has had a positive effect
- notting: To draw up some possible acceptance cases/tests for a commercial non-software goods license
#fedora-board-meeting log
| stickster | OK, I think we're still missing glezos, but let's go ahead and get started | 10 Sep 12:01 |
|---|---|---|
| stickster | Roll call! | 10 Sep 12:01 |
| mmcgrath | 10 Sep 12:01 | |
| * mmcgrath here | 10 Sep 12:01 | |
| poelcat | 10 Sep 12:01 | |
| * poelcat here | 10 Sep 12:01 | |
| notting | 10 Sep 12:01 | |
| * notting is here | 10 Sep 12:01 | |
| caillon | 10 Sep 12:01 | |
| * caillon hands stickster a roll | 10 Sep 12:01 | |
| stickster | mmm rolls | 10 Sep 12:02 |
| mdomsch | 10 Sep 12:02 | |
| * mdomsch here | 10 Sep 12:02 | |
| jwb | 10 Sep 12:02 | |
| * jwb is 75% here | 10 Sep 12:02 | |
| stickster | jwb: noted, howdy | 10 Sep 12:02 |
| * stickster also sees spot, dgilmore | 10 Sep 12:02 | |
| stickster | OK, we only have one item on the agenda for today, which is a firmware licensing change proposal | 10 Sep 12:03 |
| spot | wow, time flies. | 10 Sep 12:03 |
| stickster | spot: No kidding | 10 Sep 12:03 |
| stickster | TomCallaway/ProposedFirmwareLicensePolicyChange | 10 Sep 12:03 |
| stickster | spot: Do you want to give people a summary? | 10 Sep 12:03 |
| spot | okay, sure | 10 Sep 12:04 |
| * stickster notes that the page does this pretty well too | 10 Sep 12:04 | |
| spot | Basically, our old firmware policy was that as long as the firmware was "freely redistributable without restriction", the licensing was okay | 10 Sep 12:04 |
| poelcat | do we have a url to the existing policy? | 10 Sep 12:04 |
| jwb | it's in the proposal | 10 Sep 12:05 |
| stickster | Licensing#Binary_Firmware | 10 Sep 12:05 |
| jwb | under the section titled "Existing Firmware Licensing Policy" | 10 Sep 12:05 |
| spot | I have been working to try and get some new CPU firmware under a license which is acceptable for Fedora | 10 Sep 12:05 |
| spot | in the process of discussing this with Red Hat Legal, they pointed out that they thought it would be a good idea if we narrowed that down a bit more | 10 Sep 12:05 |
| spot | The end result is that nothing currently in Fedora changes | 10 Sep 12:06 |
| spot | but it is clearer to some folks who write firmware licensing that some of the particularly disgusting items that they like to put in those licensing texts will not be acceptable | 10 Sep 12:06 |
| spot | as well as highlighting things that we would not accept as part of a software license, but are okay for firmware. | 10 Sep 12:07 |
| dgilmore | 10 Sep 12:08 | |
| * dgilmore is here | 10 Sep 12:08 | |
| mdomsch | spot, by "some form of royalty-free use", does this mean if a firmware license said "non-commercial only" that would be OK? | 10 Sep 12:08 |
| spot | no. | 10 Sep 12:08 |
| stickster | Do I read this right, that we'd require firmware licenses not impose further restrictions on the receiver of our distribution that would be worse than what our policy requires? | 10 Sep 12:09 |
| dgilmore | spot: but limiting it to the manufacturers hardware is ok | 10 Sep 12:09 |
| spot | dgilmore: yeah, because at least that is mostly reasonable. | 10 Sep 12:09 |
| spot | stickster: pretty much, yes. | 10 Sep 12:09 |
| mmcgrath | How does one associate $FIRMWARE with $HARDWARE ? | 10 Sep 12:10 |
| mdomsch | spot, do we then need the words "some form of" ? | 10 Sep 12:10 |
| spot | mmcgrath: the licenses tend to do that. | 10 Sep 12:10 |
| mmcgrath | is that explicitly listed in the license? | 10 Sep 12:10 |
| stickster | spot: In other words, that protects redistributability of remixes, correct? | 10 Sep 12:10 |
| mmcgrath | k | 10 Sep 12:10 |
| spot | stickster: yes | 10 Sep 12:10 |
| * stickster apologizes for peppering spot with questions :-) | 10 Sep 12:10 | |
| spot | mdomsch: yes, because there are about twenty different ways to have a mechanism for "royalty-free use" | 10 Sep 12:10 |
| * stickster hates some of the firmware licenses on principle, but doesn't see anything that makes the new policy more objectionable. | 10 Sep 12:12 | |
| mdomsch | spot, then can we add "a non-exhaustive list of restrictions that Fedora considers unacceptable" ? | 10 Sep 12:13 |
| spot | mdomsch: lawyers hate to do that | 10 Sep 12:13 |
| spot | they'd rather have us do the inverse (which is what we did) | 10 Sep 12:13 |
| mdomsch | yeah, thought so | 10 Sep 12:13 |
| mmcgrath | bah, it's good for them :) | 10 Sep 12:13 |
| stickster | i.e. Never underestimate what horrible things some manufacturer might require in the future that otherwise would cause us to have ugly contortions | 10 Sep 12:14 |
| spot | the good news is that we add maybe 3 firmware components in a year. | 10 Sep 12:14 |
| spot | so there isn't a huge influx of these awful licenses coming in for review | 10 Sep 12:14 |
| mmcgrath | spot: as far as manufacturers go... is this problem going to get worse or better in the future? | 10 Sep 12:14 |
| mdomsch | do firmwares to be added require FE-LEGAL approval before inclusion? | 10 Sep 12:15 |
| mmcgrath | do we have any indications either way? | 10 Sep 12:15 |
| notting | spot: does this change the packaging requirements at all? (doesn't look like it) | 10 Sep 12:15 |
| dgilmore | mdomsch: only if the license is new | 10 Sep 12:15 |
| spot | notting: no | 10 Sep 12:15 |
| jwb | well | 10 Sep 12:15 |
| jwb | possibly | 10 Sep 12:15 |
| jwb | i gave the example of a noarch kernel-firmware package in previous discussion | 10 Sep 12:16 |
| spot | mmcgrath: no real indication, honestly. | 10 Sep 12:16 |
| spot | jwb: yes, and i said that probably wouldn't be possible. | 10 Sep 12:16 |
| spot | but that probably wouldn't have been possible before this change | 10 Sep 12:16 |
| jwb | hm. perhaps i misread what you wrote | 10 Sep 12:16 |
| spot | it depends on the license texts of the firmware | 10 Sep 12:16 |
| spot | if they're bound to the architecture (like CPU microcode), then we can't distribute it with s390, for example | 10 Sep 12:17 |
| spot | if they're not, then maybe. | 10 Sep 12:17 |
| spot | i would have to audit the licenses to be sure. | 10 Sep 12:17 |
| stickster | spot: So there may be specific changes that are required in e.g. the kernel that need to be taken up with specific maintainers? | 10 Sep 12:18 |
| spot | stickster: none that i am aware of at this time. kernel-firmware would be a new package. | 10 Sep 12:18 |
| spot | (i'm 99% sure the firmware subpackage is okay as is) | 10 Sep 12:19 |
| jwb | it also doesn't include the CPU microcode to my knowledge | 10 Sep 12:19 |
| stickster | So is this policy then a legal/licensing issue requiring a Board vote? | 10 Sep 12:20 |
| spot | sure, lets say it is. | 10 Sep 12:20 |
| * stickster trying to separate that from the packaging/engineering issues which are FESCo related | 10 Sep 12:20 | |
| stickster | or rather, clarify that it's separate | 10 Sep 12:21 |
| spot | (as i said before, technically, the answer is "no", but i wanted the board to know about it and be okay with it) | 10 Sep 12:21 |
| caillon | well in that case, a hearty +1 to acknowledge i'm aware | 10 Sep 12:22 |
| poelcat | spot: are there any parts of the new policy in particular that the board should focus on? | 10 Sep 12:22 |
| stickster | The way I see it, this is really a call for Board approval that these changes aren't undermining the overall Fedora stance on free software as it pertains to firmware | 10 Sep 12:22 |
| spot | stickster: yes. | 10 Sep 12:22 |
| mdomsch | and this lets us keep firmwares we might otherwise have to drop, that are quite useful to have (e.g. CPU ucode) | 10 Sep 12:23 |
| spot | mdomsch: indeed. | 10 Sep 12:23 |
| stickster | brunowolff asked a good question I want to relay here, on topic: | 10 Sep 12:23 |
| stickster | How is it binding on the end user? | 10 Sep 12:23 |
| stickster | That haven't agreed to anything. | 10 Sep 12:23 |
| stickster | brunowolff: I believe the answer is, in the same way that you accept GPL licensing on software distributed under the GPL in Fedora (as an example) | 10 Sep 12:23 |
| spot | indeed, stickster's observation is correct. | 10 Sep 12:24 |
| stickster | brunowolff points out that the GPL triggers on redistribution, where my answer probably failed | 10 Sep 12:25 |
| spot | to be fair, these licenses trigger on use. they are not Free licenses. | 10 Sep 12:25 |
| spot | they also trigger on distribution, but sometimes with different terms for the distributor | 10 Sep 12:25 |
| stickster | We might need to have a text in firstboot to support their use then | 10 Sep 12:25 |
| spot | ehhhhh | 10 Sep 12:25 |
| spot | i'll ask RH Legal | 10 Sep 12:26 |
| * stickster not sure either | 10 Sep 12:26 | |
| spot | but i don't think that is true. | 10 Sep 12:26 |
| stickster | In the interest of time, let's note that's a separate issue that we'll vigorously pursue :-) | 10 Sep 12:26 |
| * stickster thanks brunowolff for the tipoff | 10 Sep 12:26 | |
| spot | and if it is, we have bigger issues (because they are used well before firstboot) | 10 Sep 12:26 |
| mdomsch | I wouldn't want to see an AMD license popup to "agree to", if I'm on an Intel system, and vice versa | 10 Sep 12:26 |
| mdomsch | that gets messy in a hurry | 10 Sep 12:26 |
| stickster | So, so true. | 10 Sep 12:26 |
| spot | mdomsch: the licenses do not require explicit agreement | 10 Sep 12:26 |
| mdomsch | spot, which makes firstboot even less interesting | 10 Sep 12:27 |
| spot | it is more of a "you get the right to use it under these terms." | 10 Sep 12:27 |
| stickster | Let's note that this issue isn't limited to the firmware policy change, which is really what we're discussing. | 10 Sep 12:27 |
| stickster | Can we take an approval vote at this point for the policy? | 10 Sep 12:27 |
| notting | 10 Sep 12:27 | |
| * notting is +1 | 10 Sep 12:27 | |
| * stickster saw a +1 from caillon already | 10 Sep 12:27 | |
| spot | +1 | 10 Sep 12:27 |
| mmcgrath | 10 Sep 12:27 | |
| * mmcgrath is +1 | 10 Sep 12:27 | |
| poelcat | +1 | 10 Sep 12:27 |
| mdomsch | +1 | 10 Sep 12:27 |
| jwb | +1 | 10 Sep 12:27 |
| * stickster waits for dgilmore | 10 Sep 12:28 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | 10 Sep 12:28 |
| stickster | Thanks :-) Okay, that's 8-0 with one absentee. | 10 Sep 12:28 |
| stickster | spot: So is it correct to say that you'll carry this through to packaging/FESCo as needed? | 10 Sep 12:28 |
| spot | yes, although, it is not needed. | 10 Sep 12:29 |
| stickster | OK | 10 Sep 12:29 |
| stickster | Then that brings us to Q&A | 10 Sep 12:29 |
| stickster | inode0 asked, | 10 Sep 12:30 |
| stickster | anyone read the new drupal trademark policy governing domain names? I'm still curious why Fedora can't grant this without a TLA if certain conditions are met by the community member ... http://drupal.com/trademark | 10 Sep 12:30 |
| stickster | I think this is a good question, and I think it would be good for inode0 to raise it on FAB where we have an actual attorney present ;-) | 10 Sep 12:30 |
| spot | also, it is worth noting that i doubt that was written by a lawyer | 10 Sep 12:30 |
| spot | and it has an open ended "does not cover everything" hole at the bottom | 10 Sep 12:31 |
| --- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o stickster | 10 Sep 12:31 | |
| --- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v inode0 | 10 Sep 12:31 | |
| stickster | inode0: Sorry I relayed your question, which is the old method -- I should have voiced you here | 10 Sep 12:31 |
| inode0 | to be clear I am not advocating that policy | 10 Sep 12:32 |
| stickster | spot: Maybe also notable, it's govered by the laws of Belgium, which may have very different applicable laws | 10 Sep 12:32 |
| spot | stickster: doubtful, EU trademark law is close enough for govt work. ;) | 10 Sep 12:32 |
| inode0 | just inquiring about the idea of granting domain name use under certain conditions without signing a TLA | 10 Sep 12:32 |
| dgilmore | This policy is governed by the laws and regulations of Belgium. | 10 Sep 12:32 |
| spot | inode0: we can certainly ask about it, but i doubt that will fly. | 10 Sep 12:33 |
| stickster | inode0: No, the question is good -- "Could we have something like <...>?" -- the answer to that is probably very relevant | 10 Sep 12:33 |
| dgilmore | the laws in belgium on trademark enforcement are likely very different | 10 Sep 12:33 |
| stickster | The answer may be, "No, and here's why: US law says ..." | 10 Sep 12:33 |
| spot | also, worth noting, the way this is phrased is basically the same as the TLA | 10 Sep 12:33 |
| spot | you're agreeing to this license by using the trademark in a domain name | 10 Sep 12:33 |
| jwb | 10 Sep 12:34 | |
| * jwb notes he needs to step away for a second | 10 Sep 12:34 | |
| stickster | Thanks jwb, noted | 10 Sep 12:34 |
| notting | it's also self-contradictory in places | 10 Sep 12:34 |
| spot | notting: which is why i doubt that it was written by a lawyer. ;) | 10 Sep 12:34 |
| stickster | They are offering a license *automatically* in some cases, and through a procedure in others | 10 Sep 12:35 |
| stickster | There's not a case where you can do what you want, without a license | 10 Sep 12:35 |
| inode0 | and so do we | 10 Sep 12:35 |
| notting | point 2, vs. 5, point 2 | 10 Sep 12:35 |
| inode0 | we grant use automatically to publications for instance | 10 Sep 12:35 |
| spot | ehhh, i wouldn't say we grant use automatically | 10 Sep 12:35 |
| spot | a lot of that use falls in the realm of fair use. | 10 Sep 12:35 |
| stickster | In the specific case of publications, right | 10 Sep 12:36 |
| inode0 | well, we grant use without asking permission | 10 Sep 12:36 |
| stickster | But we allow broad rights to use the trademark in other cases as well | 10 Sep 12:36 |
| spot | for example, we would be rather unhappy if a publishing house started "Fedora Magazine" | 10 Sep 12:36 |
| spot | all about Fedora and its bits | 10 Sep 12:36 |
| stickster | I'm not sure if those rights are the same as a "license," that's something Pam would know though :-) | 10 Sep 12:36 |
| notting | inode0: don't all our usage cases for TM license that people request fall under B. 4.? | 10 Sep 12:36 |
| spot | notting: pretty much, yes. | 10 Sep 12:37 |
| stickster | notting: A lot of them, yes -- or B.1. | 10 Sep 12:37 |
| notting | which makes me think it ends up being not fundamentally different in practice. but would be good to get pam's opinion | 10 Sep 12:38 |
| mdomsch | spot, not a good example, someone already has. :-) | 10 Sep 12:38 |
| notting | being an actual lawyer and all :) | 10 Sep 12:38 |
| stickster | I think inode0's question still has a good central question -- "Is it possible to automatically grant a license on certain uses, where the use is still governed by the license terms and trademark guidelines?". | 10 Sep 12:38 |
| * stickster reused the word "question" there, sorry. | 10 Sep 12:38 | |
| stickster | Oh crud. | 10 Sep 12:39 |
| * stickster apologizes, he forgot to start the meetbot. | 10 Sep 12:39 | |
| spot | stickster: that's one for the lawyer. | 10 Sep 12:39 |
| stickster | spot: Absolutely | 10 Sep 12:39 |
| * stickster notes he'll take care of logs the old-fashioned way, promises to remember next time! | 10 Sep 12:39 | |
| spot | 10 Sep 12:39 | |
| * spot could put money on the answer, but i've been wrong before. | 10 Sep 12:39 | |
| --- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v mchua | 10 Sep 12:39 | |
| --- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v inode0 | 10 Sep 12:40 | |
| stickster | inode0: Thanks for the question | 10 Sep 12:40 |
| stickster | mchua: It's all you | 10 Sep 12:40 |
| spot | inode0: congrats on your award, btw. :) | 10 Sep 12:40 |
| stickster | 10 | 10 Sep 12:40 |
| mmcgrath | indeed, congratulations! | 10 Sep 12:40 |
| mchua | spot mentioned a "Fedora magazine" as a case of publication - I wanted to note that this issue may come up again soon, and would like to know what a publishing house (Linux Pro Magazine, or otherwise) would have to ask permission for, and what they could do without asking. | 10 Sep 12:40 |
| mdomsch | the board breaks into a rousing chorus of "for he's a jolly good fellow" | 10 Sep 12:41 |
| spot | they need to talk to the RH lawyer. | 10 Sep 12:41 |
| spot | simple as that. | 10 Sep 12:41 |
| stickster | spot: Well, we do have this: | 10 Sep 12:41 |
| mchua | For everything? Or just usage of the trademark? | 10 Sep 12:41 |
| stickster | Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Publications | 10 Sep 12:41 |
| spot | they should not assume they can do anything without asking, aside from what it listed in the existing trademark guidelines | 10 Sep 12:41 |
| mchua | Republishing content, for instance - I'm not sure where that falls. | 10 Sep 12:41 |
| spot | and if in doubt, ask. :) | 10 Sep 12:41 |
| mchua | 10 Sep 12:41 | |
| * mchua nods. Noted. That's all I had. | 10 Sep 12:41 | |
| stickster | Republishing content is probably more governed under the contract terms with the magazine, as opposed to our trademark guidelines | 10 Sep 12:42 |
| stickster | Trademark use *in* the content is subject to the terms at the link above, which basically say it's OK to refer to "Fedora," etc. in the text, as long as you're not implying or stating an endorsement by Fedora Project or Red Hat. | 10 Sep 12:43 |
| stickster | And you follow the normal TM usage guidelines | 10 Sep 12:43 |
| stickster | Does that help, mchua? | 10 Sep 12:43 |
| mchua | stickster: it does, thanks. | 10 Sep 12:43 |
| stickster | cool | 10 Sep 12:43 |
| --- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v mchua | 10 Sep 12:43 | |
| stickster | Southern_Gentlem: We have open floor right now, any burning questions? | 10 Sep 12:44 |
| stickster | Okay... | 10 Sep 12:45 |
| stickster | notting: Did you say that you had something all-other-businessy that you wanted to add if we had time? | 10 Sep 12:45 |
| stickster | notting: Oops, hang on | 10 Sep 12:45 |
| --- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v skvidal | 10 Sep 12:45 | |
| skvidal | what is the boards feelings on the chilling effects the TLA seems to already be creating? Are we worried that this damage may be greater than the damage of trademark dilution? | 10 Sep 12:46 |
| skvidal | and if anyone here says "what chilling effects" then I expect you aren't reading FAB list | 10 Sep 12:47 |
| jwb | personally, i don't think we have much option at all. the trademarks are owned by a business, that business needs to protect it's trademarks | 10 Sep 12:47 |
| stickster | I can only tell you that most of the folks with whom I've corresponded about it privately have been OK with it | 10 Sep 12:47 |
| poelcat | 10 Sep 12:47 | |
| * poelcat hasn't interpretted f-a-b as "chilling" | 10 Sep 12:47 | |
| stickster | So I think we want to avoid thinking that a couple (well thought out) objections means a chilling effect | 10 Sep 12:48 |
| spot | this is a necessary process, and we continue to work with the concerned parties to help resolve their concerns. | 10 Sep 12:48 |
| skvidal | poelcat: really? Kober just dropping the domain and backing away doesn't seem like a chilling effect? | 10 Sep 12:48 |
| stickster | Part of the point of having the discussion is to find problems and fix them, which is why we have an actual attorney involved, to cut down on "IANAL" noise :-) | 10 Sep 12:48 |
| dgilmore | skvidal: i think there is a big disconnect between people from one country and another. as much as it sucks we have to manage the trademark or we risk losing it entirely | 10 Sep 12:48 |
| mdomsch | I am glad we've been able to address many of the concerns | 10 Sep 12:48 |
| jwb | skvidal, he thought the discussion was over for some reason. it isn't | 10 Sep 12:48 |
| notting | neither have i. i understand that there are issues, but i am not seeing something as of yet that is causing significant effects on contribution | 10 Sep 12:48 |
| mdomsch | the list went quiet as people were traveling | 10 Sep 12:49 |
| stickster | skvidal: jwb: Actually, that case is not closed, but I feel reticent to share private email here for obvious reasons | 10 Sep 12:49 |
| skvidal | my curiosity is this | 10 Sep 12:49 |
| poelcat | skvidal: i think there are some people that have concerns, but I'm not clear what % of people have concerns of the total population of people dealing with the TLA | 10 Sep 12:49 |
| skvidal | what do we (fedora) value more - protecting the trademark from potential abuse or encouraging people to make and revamp and remix our distro - contributing to it as we go? | 10 Sep 12:50 |
| notting | skvidal: that sounds like a false dichotomy | 10 Sep 12:50 |
| caillon | the only thing that worries me slightly is that there was one thread and then several other people jumped in with "me too, i also have another issue" | 10 Sep 12:50 |
| skvidal | notting: I didn't say they were the only two options | 10 Sep 12:50 |
| mmcgrath | I don't get what all the fuss is about, people can do whatever they want. It's when they want to start calling things Fedora where the problem comes in. | 10 Sep 12:51 |
| skvidal | notting: but we seem to be presenting the 'dilluted trademark' bugaboo without any evidence that it has (or even will) happen | 10 Sep 12:51 |
| stickster | skvidal: There's a lot of conflation in your question -- we value both -- for instance we have a Fedora Remix mark so people can do more of what they want without fussing with trademarks | 10 Sep 12:51 |
| notting | skvidal: i see protecting the trademark in this way as the only option, unless we a) decide not to have a trademark or b) decide to fix trademark law | 10 Sep 12:51 |
| skvidal | mmcgrath: afaict I can't setup a fedoralicksdonkeys.com domain without incurring problems | 10 Sep 12:51 |
| jwb | i see a very confusing use of the word 'we' | 10 Sep 12:51 |
| mmcgrath | so call it licksdonkeys.com | 10 Sep 12:51 |
| caillon | so, i wonder how many other people have issues with the TLA, but i also wonder how many people would be doing things we definitely wouldn't want if it wasn't in place | 10 Sep 12:51 |
| stickster | skvidal: The problem is that the trademark owner can't wait for dilution to try to solve the problem. | 10 Sep 12:51 |
| notting | skvidal: a) seems problematic since we have a trademark now. b) is blocked on luis, or something. | 10 Sep 12:52 |
| skvidal | notting: we can just choose to not enforce the trademark, right? just back away from it? | 10 Sep 12:52 |
| jwb | skvidal, you need to ask Red Hat that question | 10 Sep 12:52 |
| skvidal | notting: it feels like we're acting on the basis that there will be misuse when we've not yet HAD any misuse | 10 Sep 12:52 |
| stickster | mmcgrath: Interestingly, we don't govern use of third-level domains, so you could conceivably have "fedora.licksdonkeys.com" without a problem. | 10 Sep 12:53 |
| skvidal | it's like banning all liquids in airports b/c some asshats screw around | 10 Sep 12:53 |
| mmcgrath | stickster: that is facinating | 10 Sep 12:53 |
| notting | skvidal: trademark enforcement law doesn't work that way... are you suggesting we intentionally let the trademark lapse? | 10 Sep 12:53 |
| skvidal | stickster: but my point is the same - if I want to have a satire of fedora I can't use the name? | 10 Sep 12:53 |
| skvidal | notting: yes | 10 Sep 12:53 |
| mdomsch | skvidal, we have had problems with people making fedora-branded non-software goods w/o a license | 10 Sep 12:53 |
| skvidal | mdomsch: and has the trademark rules actually STOPPED them? | 10 Sep 12:53 |
| skvidal | s/has/have/ | 10 Sep 12:53 |
| skvidal | mdomsch: has it been effective? | 10 Sep 12:54 |
| stickster | skvidal: It's not that you can't but you'd have to get a license if it was a 2nd level domain name. | 10 Sep 12:54 |
| stickster | skvidal: Yes, it has. | 10 Sep 12:54 |
| skvidal | stickster: can you tell us about those cases, then? | 10 Sep 12:54 |
| stickster | skvidal: That would be up to Red Hat Legal to do, not me. | 10 Sep 12:54 |
| skvidal | stickster: okay, then please request that | 10 Sep 12:54 |
| skvidal | I'd like to know of cases where the trademark rules have helped us | 10 Sep 12:55 |
| stickster | skvidal: Sure, I'll be happy to request that | 10 Sep 12:55 |
| skvidal | I'd like to be sure we're not practicing security theater around our trademark | 10 Sep 12:55 |
| stickster | OK, skvidal, there are some other questions queued, should I move on? | 10 Sep 12:56 |
| skvidal | that's fine. | 10 Sep 12:56 |
| --- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v skvidal | 10 Sep 12:56 | |
| --- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v EvilBob | 10 Sep 12:56 | |
| EvilBob | can't the trademark holder simply make a statement as to what is allowed rather than the solution that is being "strong armed" on to the community? | 10 Sep 12:56 |
| notting | first: i take issue with 'strong armed' | 10 Sep 12:56 |
| notting | the prior situation was that *no* usage outside of fair use was allowed, and everyone was in violation | 10 Sep 12:57 |
| EvilBob | notting: well that is fine, it is the way it can be described | 10 Sep 12:57 |
| spot | the way that US trademark law works makes it very difficult/impossible to do that. | 10 Sep 12:57 |
| stickster | As do I, especially given that we've had something like a dozen different people around the community happily sign the TLA without a problem -- but that doesn't mean there aren't problems, or that they shouldn't be fixed | 10 Sep 12:57 |
| stickster | I'm pretty sure you need a lawyer to answer this question well, and that's why we have a discussion on FAB. | 10 Sep 12:57 |
| spot | although, it may be possible to give some examples of what would be considered fine | 10 Sep 12:57 |
| EvilBob | stickster: Every time I talked to you about this in the beginning you stated "We can take the name anyhow" | 10 Sep 12:58 |
| EvilBob | stickster: that is strong arming to me | 10 Sep 12:58 |
| stickster | EvilBob: I'll be happy to publish that correspondence if you'd like | 10 Sep 12:58 |
| stickster | I think if you look at the context, you'll see that what I said was that we were trying to make sure that no one was operating under an unseen sword of Damocles | 10 Sep 12:58 |
| dgilmore | 10 Sep 12:58 | |
| * dgilmore needs to go run some errands in 2 minutes | 10 Sep 12:58 | |
| stickster | where the trademark owner wasn't even liberalizing use so that people using the TM would know what they could or couldn't do | 10 Sep 12:59 |
| EvilBob | spot: I accept your answer, I was just looking for an option, question closed. | 10 Sep 12:59 |
| stickster | EvilBob: Would you like me to publish those emails? I just want to be clear on that going forward. | 10 Sep 12:59 |
| notting | EvilBob: so, do you mean something along the lines of the aforementioned drupal page? | 10 Sep 12:59 |
| mmcgrath | 10 Sep 12:59 | |
| * mmcgrath would like to see them | 10 Sep 12:59 | |
| stickster | mmcgrath: That would not be fair to EvilBob. I just want to make sure that my statements aren't being misunderstood or taken out of context. | 10 Sep 13:00 |
| mmcgrath | 10 Sep 13:00 | |
| * mmcgrath understands. it's completely up to EvilBob. | 10 Sep 13:00 | |
| EvilBob | IMO they were not a case of public communication | 10 Sep 13:00 |
| stickster | EvilBob: Right, I'd agree, and that's why I want to know if you'd like to make them so | 10 Sep 13:01 |
| jwb | then bringing them up here is slightly bad form. | 10 Sep 13:01 |
| mmcgrath | k, then AFAIK based on what's been said. You've not been strongarmed but told legal facts that you didn't care for. | 10 Sep 13:01 |
| EvilBob | if you choose to share them with your employer and they share with co-workers so be it | 10 Sep 13:01 |
| stickster | EvilBob: I would never do that, as I think you know. | 10 Sep 13:01 |
| mmcgrath | 10 Sep 13:01 | |
| * mmcgrath doesn't want to see them without both parties permission. | 10 Sep 13:01 | |
| * stickster notes that he continued to use his GMail account, as always, so that he retains full control over his email for Fedora-related work | 10 Sep 13:01 | |
| EvilBob | anyhow the question was answered by spot | 10 Sep 13:02 |
| mmcgrath | EvilBob: do you still describe our actions or stickster's actions as strongarming you to do some action? | 10 Sep 13:02 |
| mmcgrath | 10 Sep 13:02 | |
| * mmcgrath feels this point is important. | 10 Sep 13:02 | |
| EvilBob | mmcgrath: the concept of "we can do what we want if you sign or not" was presented several times | 10 Sep 13:03 |
| mmcgrath | EvilBob: and as it was presented to you, I assume was were using it to force you to do something? That's what strongarming is. | 10 Sep 13:03 |
| EvilBob | mmcgrath: this can be seen in the treads on the topic on the FAB list | 10 Sep 13:03 |
| stickster | And I maintain that the context was not, "sign this or else," it was, "we are trying to make it possible for you to continue doing exactly what you do now, without fearing that anyone will swoop in on you." | 10 Sep 13:04 |
| mmcgrath | I've seen it on the list, and yes. Red Hat owns the trademark, as such. AFAIK, we can take it away from people. | 10 Sep 13:04 |
| stickster | I am perfectly willing to snip out the pieces of email I wrote, and publish my statements. EvilBob, would you do the same? | 10 Sep 13:04 |
| mmcgrath | How is is that strongarming? | 10 Sep 13:04 |
| mmcgrath | EvilBob: do you still describe our actions or stickster's actions as strongarming you to do some action? | 10 Sep 13:04 |
| caillon | if you come over to my house, i can throw you out whether i invited you in or not. that's different from "pay for the pizza else i'll throw you out" | 10 Sep 13:04 |
| jwb | please refrain from food based analogies during lunch hours | 10 Sep 13:05 |
| EvilBob | mmcgrath: given two options, sign or we will/can take it... | 10 Sep 13:05 |
| jwb | 10 Sep 13:05 | |
| * jwb is starving | 10 Sep 13:05 | |
| caillon | heh, sorry | 10 Sep 13:05 |
| poelcat | EvilBob: what would a better way be? | 10 Sep 13:06 |
| mmcgrath | EvilBob: is that not the reality of trademark law? | 10 Sep 13:06 |
| stickster | Not sure the metaphor was apt anyway | 10 Sep 13:06 |
| mmcgrath | I understand you don't like it. | 10 Sep 13:06 |
| EvilBob | mmcgrath: the attitude has changed in the last few weeks | 10 Sep 13:06 |
| mdomsch | that's not a power I want to see us invoke; if we've gotten there, we're seriously broken. | 10 Sep 13:06 |
| mmcgrath | I've not seen any attitude at all from us, we're trying to be compliant with trademark law. | 10 Sep 13:06 |
| mdomsch | and in far deeper ways than just trademarks | 10 Sep 13:06 |
| * stickster notes that in reviewing his email, he sent several "open door to discuss" emails to which he never got a response. How is that a change in attitude? | 10 Sep 13:08 | |
| EvilBob | stickster: there were also several conversations in IRC that gave the opinon at that time the case was closed | 10 Sep 13:09 |
| stickster | No, that was never the case, and I'm sorry that's what you took away from the conversation. | 10 Sep 13:09 |
| poelcat | What is a constructive path forward from here? | 10 Sep 13:09 |
| poelcat | IOW, what are our next steps on this issue? | 10 Sep 13:10 |
| stickster | poelcat: I think we can continue to accept and discuss issues with the TLA on the FAB list as we've been doing | 10 Sep 13:10 |
| stickster | And in addition, as I posted there, we're actively soliciting people to contact us privately if that's more comfortable for them. | 10 Sep 13:10 |
| EvilBob | poelcat: at this time I feel we are now interacting, dealing if you will, with the right people to handle the issue | 10 Sep 13:11 |
| notting | what stickster said </edit>. we appear to have veered off into a discussion of past communications, which is not something we can take an AI to change | 10 Sep 13:11 |
| EvilBob | notting: it is not the direction I wished to go, I simply wanted to look at, ask about an option | 10 Sep 13:12 |
| poelcat | okay, it sounds like we're good and can go on to next question? | 10 Sep 13:12 |
| EvilBob | please | 10 Sep 13:12 |
| stickster | I believe so | 10 Sep 13:12 |
| --- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v inode0 | 10 Sep 13:12 | |
| --- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v EvilBob | 10 Sep 13:12 | |
| stickster | inode0: Did you have a question pending? | 10 Sep 13:14 |
| stickster | I thought I saw one | 10 Sep 13:14 |
| inode0 | A quick question that occurred to me during the discussion with skvidal | 10 Sep 13:14 |
| inode0 | Has the board ever granted a non-software goods license to anyone for commercial use? | 10 Sep 13:14 |
| stickster | inode0: For commercial use? Hm, I don't think so | 10 Sep 13:15 |
| inode0 | Is that a deal breaker or is the board open to it in the right circumstance? | 10 Sep 13:15 |
| mdomsch | we've certainly rejected a few folks who have come, with incomplete proposals, for such | 10 Sep 13:16 |
| stickster | I don't think it's necessarily a deal breaker -- I think we haven't seen someone come to us from inside the Fedora Project to do something with it | 10 Sep 13:16 |
| mdomsch | inode0, I'm open to it, but there would have to be significant benefit for fedora to do so | 10 Sep 13:17 |
| stickster | It's a good question though, licensing someone else to profit from the Fedora trademarks | 10 Sep 13:17 |
| inode0 | In the cases I'm thinking about the whole point is to promote Fedora | 10 Sep 13:17 |
| mdomsch | "hi, I sell t-shirts, and want to make money selling shirts with your logo please" - uh, no. | 10 Sep 13:17 |
| jwb | hm | 10 Sep 13:18 |
| inode0 | There are expenses to producing coffee mugs and such - I'm not really thinking about department stores :) | 10 Sep 13:18 |
| notting | maybe? | 10 Sep 13:18 |
| jwb | mdomsch, how does the brand fuel agreement significantly help fedora? | 10 Sep 13:18 |
| mdomsch | notting, that's already covered | 10 Sep 13:18 |
| notting | mdomsch: selling shirts along with preinstalled boxes is covered? | 10 Sep 13:18 |
| mdomsch | jwb, I don't think the board was involved in the brand fuel deal, and I certainly know nothing about it. | 10 Sep 13:19 |
| stickster | Nope, that predates even the Board I think | 10 Sep 13:19 |
| inode0 | If a "Fedora Store" were to get off the ground some funds would need to be raised early on in order to stock items for example. | 10 Sep 13:19 |
| jwb | so brand fuel is the black sheep of agreements. that's sort of sad, given that it's what things are often compared to | 10 Sep 13:19 |
| notting | although perhaps we can take an AI for stickster and/or mspevack to attempt to follow the money and see where it goes? | 10 Sep 13:19 |
| inode0 | It is difficult for volunteers to work on such things if they need to worry about having $50 left over. | 10 Sep 13:20 |
| stickster | inode0: Unless it was through an "on-demand" house, which significantly lowers the money at risk, might raise consumer cost somewhat, and is easy to start up | 10 Sep 13:20 |
| mdomsch | I'm not opposed to there being a commercial entity that sells Fedora-branded schwag | 10 Sep 13:20 |
| mdomsch | but I'd expect there to be a business relationship that benefits Fedora in that | 10 Sep 13:20 |
| * stickster wonders whether we can just bless a CafePress and be done with it | 10 Sep 13:20 | |
| inode0 | on demand I think is not going to happen for any of us who care about the quality of the merchandise | 10 Sep 13:20 |
| stickster | inode0: If you cut out the on-demand option -- which is not automatically an unreasonable route to take -- it automatically means more work and has bookkeeping implications. | 10 Sep 13:22 |
| mdomsch | notting, no, shirts+boxes is not directly covered. boxes alone is. | 10 Sep 13:22 |
| notting | mdomsch: ok, sorry - i wasn't being clear | 10 Sep 13:22 |
| stickster | inode0: Which is why we've kept going down that path without having the effort bear fruit. | 10 Sep 13:22 |
| inode0 | stickster: right, which is why it becomes more likely if someone can run a little side business | 10 Sep 13:23 |
| notting | mdomsch: was wondering if changing the operator from 't-shirt megastore' to 'fedora pre-install vendor' in the 'i want to sell t-shirts' question changes the answer | 10 Sep 13:23 |
| inode0 | 10 Sep 13:23 | |
| * inode0 doesn't have any such person in mind, mind you :) | 10 Sep 13:23 | |
| stickster | notting: Not sure it does. | 10 Sep 13:23 |
| inode0 | just wanted to be clear on whether this was something that might be possible, thanks I believe it is | 10 Sep 13:24 |
| stickster | inode0: Yes, I believe it is too -- maybe not easy, but certainly possible | 10 Sep 13:24 |
| stickster | inode0: Thanks for the questions | 10 Sep 13:24 |
| notting | stickster: or, in the case of the pre-install vendor, replace t-shirt with 'case badge' or 'laptop decal' | 10 Sep 13:24 |
| mdomsch | notting, I'd be open to a contract that allowed such, on a per-contract basis | 10 Sep 13:25 |
| mdomsch | not blanket though | 10 Sep 13:25 |
| notting | stickster: basically, circling back - i can see a potential case where the board would approve non-software goods | 10 Sep 13:25 |
| notting | even if we haven't approved one ye | 10 Sep 13:26 |
| notting | even if we haven't approved one yet | 10 Sep 13:26 |
| stickster | notting: I think it might be good for us to draw up something saying, "Here are some cases we can foresee saying 'yes'" | 10 Sep 13:26 |
| stickster | notting: Willing to do that? | 10 Sep 13:26 |
| notting | stickster: sure, i can write up some examples, and circulate to the board for consensus | 10 Sep 13:27 |
| stickster | notting: Thanks, appreciate that | 10 Sep 13:27 |
| stickster | I don't think we have anything left in queue, so unless there's any other business...? | 10 Sep 13:27 |
| poelcat | 10 Sep 13:27 | |
| * poelcat would add that if we go the route of approving vendors we might be better off having only *one* for each type of purpose so it is easier to manage quality, relationship, etc. | 10 Sep 13:27 | |
| notting | stickster: do you want this before or after we discuss the pending item in the board queue related to this? | 10 Sep 13:28 |
| stickster | notting: If you can draw up something before, that would be helpful I think | 10 Sep 13:28 |
| stickster | before next week's meeting, I mean. | 10 Sep 13:28 |
| notting | ok | 10 Sep 13:29 |
| stickster | All right, let's call it then | 10 Sep 13:29 |
| stickster | poelcat: By the way, I'm a soft +1 to your suggestion there | 10 Sep 13:30 |
| stickster | Only because I haven't thought about geo issues | 10 Sep 13:30 |
| stickster | OK, if there's nothing further, we'll end the meeting in 5 | 10 Sep 13:30 |
| stickster | 4 | 10 Sep 13:30 |
| stickster | 3 | 10 Sep 13:30 |
| stickster | 2 | 10 Sep 13:31 |
| stickster | 1 | 10 Sep 13:31 |
| stickster | </meeting> | 10 Sep 13:31 |
| stickster | Thanks everyone for coming, and for your questions | 10 Sep 13:31 |
| mmcgrath | 10 Sep 13:31 | |
| * mmcgrath out | 10 Sep 13:31 | |
| stickster | The next public IRC meeting will be on Thursday, Oct 1 at 1600 UTC/12pm US-EDT | 10 Sep 13:31 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!