Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-features (86 mails)

< Previous Next >
[openFATE 311039] Review of openSUSE Trademark Guidelines
Feature changed by: Pascal Bleser (pbleser)
Feature #311039, revision 4
Title: Review of openSUSE Trademark Guidelines Unconfirmed
Requester: Important

Requested by: Bryen Yunashko (byunashko)
Partner organization:

This feature request is meant to collect the comments of the community
at large The current guidlines can be found here
The openSUSE Board will review comments posted here along with concerns
and considerations collected elsewhere and find ways to
strengthen/clarify the guidelines.
Please review the current guidelines and post comments on language.
(Giving specific language change suggestions is helpful) and if you
have specific cases where current guidelines have been a problem,
please post here as well.

#1: Alberto Passalacqua (greengeeko) (2011-01-06 17:54:32)
first of all, thank you for bringing this problem up. I feel it blocks
contributions concerning derivatives, or, at least, it did with me.
My major concern is the section "Distributing openSUSE With Project-
Based Modifications". According to this section, a distribution with
only openSUSE packages created in Studio must be de-branded, if one
package has been added to the default installation. This basically
translates in de-branding all the distributions created in Studio,
since they do not reflect the default installation pattern.
I would also suggest to create a review process for the "Distributing
openSUSE With All Other Modification" section. I try to explain this
with an example. Let us assume I create a default openSUSE system, and
I add an open source (GPL or compatible) application with file overlay,
and I would like to create a derivative within the openSUSE project
(like, for example, openSUSE medical, which did it, but it is not clear
how). This could be very positive marketing for openSUSE, and would
potentially help in attracting more user, and pay back a bit of the
resources offered through Studio and OBS.
The review process should be simple: a set of a few clear requirements
the contributor has to follow (for example: only GPL, no profit, no
copyright infringment, ...), and the approval should be granted by the
board or automatically, with the possibility of ask for changes to
comply. Please, no long lists of rules, because it just would not cut
it ;-)

+ #2: Pascal Bleser (pbleser) (2011-01-06 23:54:52) (reply to #1)
+ Couldn't agree more on all those points, and the current rules are
+ often in the way as well as not precise enough. But when they have been
+ set up initially, it was clear that they were just a "first version"
+ which would have to be perfected in the future. We've failed to do so
+ up to now.
+ I believe that even more than "good" use cases, it would be even more
+ interesting to scratch our head about "bad" use cases (anti-patterns,
+ if you will, to use software development language) because as much as
+ all of us want it to be as clear, permissive and simple as possible, we
+ must also think of the cases of abuse those rules must prevent.

openSUSE Feature:

< Previous Next >
List Navigation
This Thread