FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-09-2010, 06:23 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Moblin -> MeeGo

Hello Board folks,

As you may be aware, the Moblin and Maemo communities recently merged
to form the MeeGo project. Previously Fedora included a spin based on
the Moblin platform. Now Peter Robinson, in his Mini SIG work, is
busy working on moving the spin to MeeGo. MeeGo is a trademark of the
Linux Foundation, which has published guidelines for usage.[1]

Usually when the Board does a trademark approval, we do so from the
POV of ensuring compatibility with the Fedora trademark. The Board
would require a new submission for TM approval if the spin changes
substantially. In this case, the changes to the spin are not expected
to be substantial -- the bulk of the work consists of code changes
upstream and package renaming (e.g. 'moblin-*' to 'meego-*'). It's
uncertain whether all that will be completed for F14, or deferred to
F15.[2]

Peter and I are currently consulting with the Linux Foundation (after
a quick nod from Red Hat's trademark counsel) about an appropriate
name, "MeeGo Spin by Fedora." We're also aware of the other
requirements for technical compliance on the MeeGo side and Peter will
certify those requirements are met as well.

This particular case seemed somewhat unique in that, although the spin
is unlikely to change drastically, its name combines a new non-Fedora
trademark with the Fedora trademark. The spin's eligibility for use
of the Fedora trademark, however, doesn't change.

So, does the MeeGo-based spin need to route back through the Board for
approval? Or is it sufficient that (1) the Board is informed of the
name change, and (2) all the requirements are met for use of the MeeGo
trademark according to the Linux Foundation?

* * *
[1] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/linux-foundation-trademark-usage-guidelines
[2] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/138616.html

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 07-09-2010, 07:03 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Moblin -> MeeGo

On 07/09/2010 11:53 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> Peter and I are currently consulting with the Linux Foundation (after
> a quick nod from Red Hat's trademark counsel) about an appropriate
> name, "MeeGo Spin by Fedora." We're also aware of the other
> requirements for technical compliance on the MeeGo side and Peter will
> certify those requirements are met as well.

How does this meet the Fedora trademark guidelines? Shouldn't it be
Meego Fedora Spin? I asked before and was told that "Fedora Spin" and
"Fedora Remix" should not be separated.

Rahul
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 07-11-2010, 02:33 PM
Paul Frields
 
Default Moblin -> MeeGo

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> *On 07/09/2010 11:53 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> Peter and I are currently consulting with the Linux Foundation (after
>> a quick nod from Red Hat's trademark counsel) about an appropriate
>> name, "MeeGo Spin by Fedora." *We're also aware of the other
>> requirements for technical compliance on the MeeGo side and Peter will
>> certify those requirements are met as well.
>
> How does this meet the Fedora trademark guidelines? Shouldn't it be
> Meego Fedora Spin? *I asked before and was told that "Fedora Spin" and
> "Fedora Remix" *should not be separated.

I don't recall giving any advice about the use of a "Fedora Spin"
term. The "Fedora Remix" term is not separable, as stated in our
guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Secondary_Mark

Paul
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 07-13-2010, 02:31 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Moblin -> MeeGo

On 07/11/2010 08:03 PM, Paul Frields wrote:
> I don't recall giving any advice about the use of a "Fedora Spin"
> term. The "Fedora Remix" term is not separable, as stated in our
> guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Secondary_Mark
>

So, is it ok to separate Fedora and Spin? Is there any particular
reason why Meego spin is deviating from the naming convention?

Rahul
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 07-13-2010, 06:04 PM
Paul Frields
 
Default Moblin -> MeeGo

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/11/2010 08:03 PM, Paul Frields wrote:
>> I don't recall giving any advice about the use of a "Fedora Spin"
>> term. The "Fedora Remix" term is not separable, as stated in our
>> guidelines:
>> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Secondary_Mark
>>
>
> So, is it ok to separate Fedora and Spin? *Is there any particular
> reason why Meego spin is deviating from the naming convention?

The reason is that MeeGo is a trademark owned by the Linux Foundation,
with its own set of usage guidelines -- which is what I wrote in my
first email. We are aiming to meet their requirements because we
respect their trademark guidelines the same way we expect others to
respect ours.

Fedora spins have never had requirements around their naming other
than that their usage be approved by the Board, as a requirement for
using the Fedora trademarks.

Paul
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 07-13-2010, 06:16 PM
Jeff Spaleta
 
Default Moblin -> MeeGo

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Paul Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason is that MeeGo is a trademark owned by the Linux Foundation,
> with its own set of usage guidelines -- which is what I wrote in my
> first email. We are aiming to meet their requirements because we
> respect their trademark guidelines the same way we expect others to
> respect ours.
>
> Fedora spins have never had requirements around their naming other
> than that their usage be approved by the Board, as a requirement for
> using the Fedora trademarks.


So given that this is the first interaction between our trademark
policy and an external trademark policy... perhaps its appropriate to
look at this as a chance to set up a style of naming as a better best
practise convention for spin naming. You can't future proof for all
such interactions of course. But its good to have an understanding as
to whether this naming form is meant to be an exception or a best
practise moving forward.

First question:
Does "The Whatever Spin by Fedora" form hold value as a best practise
for spin naming generally?

Second question:
Does this construction:"The MeeGo Spin by Fedora, a Fedora Remix"
meet the multi-organizational guidelines as well allowing use of the
secondary mark? And if so is this a potential best practise
construction for spins that want to use the secondary fedora remix
trademarks?

-jef
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 07-14-2010, 01:42 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Moblin -> MeeGo

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:16:38AM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Paul Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The reason is that MeeGo is a trademark owned by the Linux Foundation,
> > with its own set of usage guidelines -- which is what I wrote in my
> > first email. We are aiming to meet their requirements because we
> > respect their trademark guidelines the same way we expect others to
> > respect ours.
> >
> > Fedora spins have never had requirements around their naming other
> > than that their usage be approved by the Board, as a requirement for
> > using the Fedora trademarks.
>
>
> So given that this is the first interaction between our trademark
> policy and an external trademark policy... perhaps its appropriate to
> look at this as a chance to set up a style of naming as a better best
> practise convention for spin naming. You can't future proof for all
> such interactions of course. But its good to have an understanding as
> to whether this naming form is meant to be an exception or a best
> practise moving forward.
>
> First question:
> Does "The Whatever Spin by Fedora" form hold value as a best practise
> for spin naming generally?

One way we can assess whether another party would accept such a
convention ("$X Spin by Fedora") is to see what the Linux Foundation's
counsel thinks of it. I've sent a request to LF for their feedback.
Our own legal counsel didn't look unfavorably on that naming when I
propsed it. If LF also finds it acceptable, that's another good data
point.

We could suggest it to the legal list (where I believe at least a
couple of other attorneys lurk) for additional feedback. What other
steps do you think would be appropriate to make this a best practice?

> Second question:
> Does this construction:"The MeeGo Spin by Fedora, a Fedora Remix"
> meet the multi-organizational guidelines as well allowing use of the
> secondary mark? And if so is this a potential best practise
> construction for spins that want to use the secondary fedora remix
> trademarks?

A Spin and a Remix are not the same thing, so this wouldn't be
appropriate IMHO. It confuses the terms.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 07-14-2010, 05:58 PM
Robyn Bergeron
 
Default Moblin -> MeeGo

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:16:38AM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Paul Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The reason is that MeeGo is a trademark owned by the Linux Foundation,
>> > with its own set of usage guidelines -- which is what I wrote in my
>> > first email. We are aiming to meet their requirements because we
>> > respect their trademark guidelines the same way we expect others to
>> > respect ours.
>> >
>> > Fedora spins have never had requirements around their naming other
>> > than that their usage be approved by the Board, as a requirement for
>> > using the Fedora trademarks.
>>
>>
>> So given that this is the first interaction between our trademark
>> policy and an external trademark policy... perhaps its appropriate to
>> look at this as a chance to set up a style of naming as a better best
>> practise convention for spin naming. * You can't future proof for all
>> such interactions of course. But its good to have an understanding as
>> to whether this naming form is meant to be an exception or a best
>> practise moving forward.
>>
>> First question:
>> Does "The Whatever Spin by Fedora" *form hold value as a best practise
>> for spin naming generally?
>
> One way we can assess whether another party would accept such a
> convention ("$X Spin by Fedora") is to see what the Linux Foundation's
> counsel thinks of it. *I've sent a request to LF for their feedback.
> Our own legal counsel didn't look unfavorably on that naming when I
> propsed it. *If LF also finds it acceptable, that's another good data
> point.
>
> We could suggest it to the legal list (where I believe at least a
> couple of other attorneys lurk) for additional feedback. *What other
> steps do you think would be appropriate to make this a best practice?
>
>> Second question:
>> Does this construction:"The MeeGo Spin by Fedora, a Fedora Remix"
>> meet the multi-organizational guidelines as well allowing use of the
>> secondary mark? And if so is this a potential best practise
>> construction for spins that want to use the secondary fedora remix
>> trademarks?
>
> A Spin and a Remix are not the same thing, so this wouldn't be
> appropriate IMHO. *It confuses the terms.

There is some good info here on what the differences are:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix#Are_Remixes_and_Spins_different.3F

>
> --
> Paul W. Frields * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *http://paul.frields.org/
> *gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 *5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
> *http://redhat.com/ * - *- *- *- * http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
> * * * * *Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
>
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:44 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org