On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Greg KH <gre...@suse.de> wrote:
> {sigh} This isn't the first time I've heard this type of thing
> happening, and again, it's totally not acceptable.
>
> I'll keep following up on this...I agree with you, Greg. This isn't what I expected. As Peter explained, we (the Fedora community) went to all the trouble of working through the Linux Foundation attorneys to agree on wording for our spin (which we had hoped to call the "MeeGo Spin by Fedora"). Once we got the LF attorneys to sign off on the naming, we were contacted by the MeeGo folks saying "You're going to be compliant, right?" to which I replied "Of course... it is our intention to be compliant or not use the MeeGo trademarks." I asked for the documentation on what being compliant meant, and was given a link that contained no details. It was only later in the conversation that the MeeGo folks said "Then you're going to use connman, right?" As I read it, the latest "compliance" draft documentation says nothing about connman, but if that's really going to be a solid requirement for compliance, Fedora will most likely go the route of rebranding our spin so as not to use the MeeGo trademarks or artwork. It's very unfortunate that things couldn't have been spelled out in a more transparent and self-consistent manner. It certainly would have saved a lot of time and effort. -- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
