Hello,

I have seen people saying that we should avoid using 'fedora' and 'redhat'
in spec files, to help reusing in other contexts (be it, selfishly,
EPEL/RHEL/OLPC, or other distros or upstreams). I think it is a good
idea, especially since there is a trademark on fedora and redhat (unless
I am wrong).

Should we have a guideline about that? Or on a 'trick' page?

--
Pat

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 16:06 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have seen people saying that we should avoid using 'fedora' and 'redhat'
> in spec files, to help reusing in other contexts (be it, selfishly,
> EPEL/RHEL/OLPC, or other distros or upstreams). I think it is a good
> idea, especially since there is a trademark on fedora and redhat (unless
> I am wrong).
>
> Should we have a guideline about that? Or on a 'trick' page?

-1 ... unless there is any technical or legal reason (trademarks)
to ban these strings, I do not see any need to add any such kind of
restrictions.

Ralf


--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Patrice Dumas wrote:

Hello,

I have seen people saying that we should avoid using 'fedora' and 'redhat'
in spec files, to help reusing in other contexts (be it, selfishly,
EPEL/RHEL/OLPC, or other distros or upstreams). I think it is a good
idea, especially since there is a trademark on fedora and redhat (unless
I am wrong).


Should we have a guideline about that? Or on a 'trick' page?


A guideline for that seems a bit far-fetched to me, but what use of the
terms did you want to target specifically ? I quick grep through the
spec files mostly reveals usage in desktop-file-install ("--vendor" and
"--add-category"), some "README.fedora" files, and conditionals such as
"%if "%{?fedora}" > "5""


--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Denis Leroy wrote:

Patrice Dumas wrote:

Hello,

I have seen people saying that we should avoid using 'fedora' and
'redhat'

in spec files, to help reusing in other contexts (be it, selfishly,
EPEL/RHEL/OLPC, or other distros or upstreams). I think it is a good
idea, especially since there is a trademark on fedora and redhat
(unless I am wrong).


Should we have a guideline about that? Or on a 'trick' page?


A guideline for that seems a bit far-fetched to me, but what use of the
terms did you want to target specifically ? I quick grep through the
spec files mostly reveals usage in desktop-file-install ("--vendor" and
"--add-category"), some "README.fedora" files, and conditionals such as
"%if "%{?fedora}" > "5""


One use case that comes to mind: someone doing a spin that can't meet the
Fedora criteria for still being called Fedora. In theory, simply replacing
fedora-release and fedora-logos is sufficient, but in practice, Fedora (and/or
Red Hat) shows up a few other places as well. In gnome, System->About Fedora
still shows up, and System->About Fedora still says "Distributor: Red Hat,
Inc." (this one probably ought to say "Fedora Project" for Fedora...). In web
pages, the apache identifier string is still "Apache/2.2.8 (Fedora)", and I'm
sure there are probably other cases as well.



--
Jarod Wilson
jwilson@redhat.com

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 08:55 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> One use case that comes to mind: someone doing a spin that can't meet the
> Fedora criteria for still being called Fedora. In theory, simply replacing
> fedora-release and fedora-logos is sufficient, but in practice, Fedora (and/or
> Red Hat) shows up a few other places as well. In gnome, System->About Fedora
> still shows up, and System->About Fedora still says "Distributor: Red Hat,
> Inc." (this one probably ought to say "Fedora Project" for Fedora...). In web
> pages, the apache identifier string is still "Apache/2.2.8 (Fedora)", and I'm
> sure there are probably other cases as well.

Well then the theory is blatantly wrong.

--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 08:55 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
One use case that comes to mind: someone doing a spin that can't meet the
Fedora criteria for still being called Fedora. In theory, simply replacing
fedora-release and fedora-logos is sufficient, but in practice, Fedora (and/or
Red Hat) shows up a few other places as well. In gnome, System->About Fedora
still shows up, and System->About Fedora


Oops, meant "System->About Gnome" there.

still says "Distributor: Red Hat,
Inc." (this one probably ought to say "Fedora Project" for Fedora...). In web
pages, the apache identifier string is still "Apache/2.2.8 (Fedora)", and I'm
sure there are probably other cases as well.


Well then the theory is blatantly wrong.


Yep, that's exactly what I'm sayin'.

--
Jarod Wilson
jwilson@redhat.com

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 08:55 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> One use case that comes to mind: someone doing a spin that can't meet the
> Fedora criteria for still being called Fedora. In theory, simply replacing
> fedora-release and fedora-logos is sufficient, but in practice, Fedora (and/or
> Red Hat) shows up a few other places as well. In gnome, System->About Fedora
> still shows up, and System->About Fedora still says "Distributor: Red Hat,
> Inc." (this one probably ought to say "Fedora Project" for Fedora...). In web
> pages, the apache identifier string is still "Apache/2.2.8 (Fedora)", and I'm
> sure there are probably other cases as well.

Well, there is a difference in saying that we got these packages from
Fedora, and "We are Fedora", and this could wind up being a lengthy
discussion with the RH legal team.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 08:55 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>
> > One use case that comes to mind: someone doing a spin that can't meet the
> > Fedora criteria for still being called Fedora. In theory, simply replacing
> > fedora-release and fedora-logos is sufficient, but in practice, Fedora (and/or
> > Red Hat) shows up a few other places as well. In gnome, System->About Fedora
> > still shows up, and System->About Fedora still says "Distributor: Red Hat,
> > Inc." (this one probably ought to say "Fedora Project" for Fedora...). In web
> > pages, the apache identifier string is still "Apache/2.2.8 (Fedora)", and I'm
> > sure there are probably other cases as well.
>
> Well, there is a difference in saying that we got these packages from
> Fedora, and "We are Fedora", and this could wind up being a lengthy
> discussion with the RH legal team.

Where the problem comes up is where a project is not saying they are
Fedora/Red Hat/etc but the packages say they are.. and where that line
is where lawyers get lots of money .


--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> wrote:

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 08:55 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:


One use case that comes to mind: someone doing a spin that can't meet the

> Fedora criteria for still being called Fedora. In theory, simply replacing
> fedora-release and fedora-logos is sufficient, but in practice, Fedora (and/or
> Red Hat) shows up a few other places as well. In gnome, System->About Fedora
> still shows up, and System->About Fedora still says "Distributor: Red Hat,
> Inc." (this one probably ought to say "Fedora Project" for Fedora...). In web
> pages, the apache identifier string is still "Apache/2.2.8 (Fedora)", and I'm
> sure there are probably other cases as well.

Well, there is a difference in saying that we got these packages from
Fedora, and "We are Fedora", and this could wind up being a lengthy
discussion with the RH legal team.


Where the problem comes up is where a project is not saying they are
Fedora/Red Hat/etc but the packages say they are.. and where that line
is where lawyers get lots of money .


Either way, sounds like it's more a fedora-legal issue, and outside the
jurisdiction of fedora packaging guidelines.


-- Rex

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:48:32PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> Either way, sounds like it's more a fedora-legal issue, and outside the
> jurisdiction of fedora packaging guidelines.

There is a legal aspect but also a ease of reusage which may be of
relevance for packaging guidelines.

Besides I am not on fedora-legal and I think that it should be better if
somebody from the packaging commitee contacted legal about this issue.

--
Pat

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging