From Fedora Project Wiki
- +1 for the nicununu ones. Bkearney
- Although, I will still throw out that if I am Alfresco deploying a swanky appliance on Fedora.. do I think of it as a remix? I dont think so.Bkearney
- In my understanding, the use of this logo is optional, so a derivative is not forced to say "remix", we just don't want him to say "based on" or "derived from" (NicuBuculei 12:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
- I understand I may be subvirting the process. I see value in my scenario (Swanky Alfresco Appliance on Fedora.. aka SAAF) of saying that the appliance is built on an unmodified fedora. Bkearney
- I am not sure if that appliance would differ radically from a "unmodified fedora" with a couple of libraries from rpmfusion on top. But I am sure Pfrields will enlighten us with insight from the legal side (NicuBuculei 13:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
- Bkearney, you're not subverting the process. But protecting the meaning of "Fedora" -- i.e. the universe of software in our repositories -- is key to maintaining our trademark against confusion in the marketplace, as Legal has told us. Keep in mind that, assuming the current draft guidelines are approved, the use of the new mark is intended for people who don't want to seek permission. In the case of any particular appliance builder, they would still be free to seek approval for use of the actual Fedora trademarks -- that's not verboten, just non-automatic. And I agree with Nicu insofar as a "remix" can also be defined as something on top of otherwise stock Fedora. (Paul Frields 13:38, 8 Oct 2008 (UTC))
- Pfrields: Ok.. so if I am a coprorate entity who wants to distribute an application "Based on" fedora, then there would be a process for me to come to the board and say "I am only adding new bits, not changing base bits. I would like to say my appliance includes fedora" (process to be defined later). Is that correct? If so, I will shut up :) Bkearney
- Yes, people have always been able to do that. But the Board's first question is probably going to be, "Why can't you use the Fedora Remix mark?" Not having a compelling answer for that question might not be a barrier to using the Fedora trademarks instead, but that depends on how often the Board is being approached. I still haven't seen anyone articulate clearly what purpose the Fedora trademarks serve that can't be served with less overhead by the Fedora Remix mark. Paul Frields
- The only one I can give you is impression of the word remix (and I know, it is opinion, so take it for what it is worth). Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix and numbers 1 and 6 of http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=remix I interpret remix to mean "changing" the original". In the SAAF example, I do not see fedora being changed. Again, this is my personal intrepretation.
- So let me give you an example based on song. If I add my voice to an original recording without changing the content of the original -- i.e. singing over it -- isn't that a remix? Common parlance, years of legal process, and musicians and business people alike all say "yes." When something is added that makes the results inseparable (or seemingly inseparable) to the user, you're seeing a remix. We've made a special exception in the trademark guidelines for content that is clearly separable from Fedora, such as presentation material that appears on a USB key outside the Fedora live image that also inhabits that key. But the case of an appliance is not clearly separable, AFAICT, so it's not covered by that exception. Nevertheless, it's not vital for me to change your mind or vice versa. The guidelines clearly handle all these cases and at the end of the day, the process exists for exceptions if the Board deems them worthwhile. Paul Frields
- Also a valid point. I think the current state is very good. Thanks for your efforts on this!. Bkearney
- You've helped a lot with your contributions to the use cases, so thank you back. The end goal is that it will be easier than ever for other entities to drive interest in Fedora while themselves benefiting from the platform features (like remixing). Hopefully we'll soon have the approvals in place for all that to move at light speed. Paul Frields
- Also a valid point. I think the current state is very good. Thanks for your efforts on this!. Bkearney
- So let me give you an example based on song. If I add my voice to an original recording without changing the content of the original -- i.e. singing over it -- isn't that a remix? Common parlance, years of legal process, and musicians and business people alike all say "yes." When something is added that makes the results inseparable (or seemingly inseparable) to the user, you're seeing a remix. We've made a special exception in the trademark guidelines for content that is clearly separable from Fedora, such as presentation material that appears on a USB key outside the Fedora live image that also inhabits that key. But the case of an appliance is not clearly separable, AFAICT, so it's not covered by that exception. Nevertheless, it's not vital for me to change your mind or vice versa. The guidelines clearly handle all these cases and at the end of the day, the process exists for exceptions if the Board deems them worthwhile. Paul Frields
- The only one I can give you is impression of the word remix (and I know, it is opinion, so take it for what it is worth). Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix and numbers 1 and 6 of http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=remix I interpret remix to mean "changing" the original". In the SAAF example, I do not see fedora being changed. Again, this is my personal intrepretation.
- Yes, people have always been able to do that. But the Board's first question is probably going to be, "Why can't you use the Fedora Remix mark?" Not having a compelling answer for that question might not be a barrier to using the Fedora trademarks instead, but that depends on how often the Board is being approached. I still haven't seen anyone articulate clearly what purpose the Fedora trademarks serve that can't be served with less overhead by the Fedora Remix mark. Paul Frields
- Pfrields: Ok.. so if I am a coprorate entity who wants to distribute an application "Based on" fedora, then there would be a process for me to come to the board and say "I am only adding new bits, not changing base bits. I would like to say my appliance includes fedora" (process to be defined later). Is that correct? If so, I will shut up :) Bkearney
- Bkearney, you're not subverting the process. But protecting the meaning of "Fedora" -- i.e. the universe of software in our repositories -- is key to maintaining our trademark against confusion in the marketplace, as Legal has told us. Keep in mind that, assuming the current draft guidelines are approved, the use of the new mark is intended for people who don't want to seek permission. In the case of any particular appliance builder, they would still be free to seek approval for use of the actual Fedora trademarks -- that's not verboten, just non-automatic. And I agree with Nicu insofar as a "remix" can also be defined as something on top of otherwise stock Fedora. (Paul Frields 13:38, 8 Oct 2008 (UTC))
- I am not sure if that appliance would differ radically from a "unmodified fedora" with a couple of libraries from rpmfusion on top. But I am sure Pfrields will enlighten us with insight from the legal side (NicuBuculei 13:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
- I understand I may be subvirting the process. I see value in my scenario (Swanky Alfresco Appliance on Fedora.. aka SAAF) of saying that the appliance is built on an unmodified fedora. Bkearney
- In my understanding, the use of this logo is optional, so a derivative is not forced to say "remix", we just don't want him to say "based on" or "derived from" (NicuBuculei 12:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC))