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
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
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""
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.
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 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'.
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.
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 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
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
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Denis Leroy -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Jarod Wilson -
Jesse Keating -
Patrice Dumas -
Ralf Corsepius -
Rex Dieter -
Stephen John Smoogen