[MeeGo-dev] Trademark compliance, name usage, etc.
pbrobinson at gmail.com
Tue Sep 21 23:58:19 PDT 2010
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Greg KH <gregkh at suse.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 09:29:43PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Greg KH <gregkh at suse.de> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:16:40PM -0700, Auke Kok wrote:
>> >> On 09/20/10 12:42, Andrew Wafaa wrote:
>> >> >Firstly sorry if this is the wrong list to send this question to, please
>> >> >advise on the best one if it isn't here.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have been spending my time trying to get the MeeGo UX into reasonable
>> >> >shape on my preferred distro of choice - openSUSE. Now before I make
>> >> >any form of release/spin/$WHATEVER I would just like to get
>> >> >clarification on what I can/can't use.
>> >> >
>> >> >My understanding is that to use the word "MeeGo" in any direct naming is
>> >> >a no-no unless I pass compliance, of which part of that would mean
>> >> >taking on Connman and other parts of the MeeGo stack that just aren't in
>> >> >my preferred distro and to be honest, we wouldn't want them in there as
>> >> >we have a well tried& tested stack.
>> >> >
>> >> >So my simple question is, if I use the MeeGo UX can I say "$RELEASE is
>> >> >based on MeeGo's User eXperience, sitting ontop of $DISTRO.
>> >> >Complimenting the other Desktop Environments that are on offer, and
>> >> >offering some additional components (listing components).
>> >> >
>> >> >When things were Moblin, there was a clearly defined usage of UX. This
>> >> >seems to have disappeared under MeeGo so things aren't as simple as they
>> >> >used to be.
>> >> I hate to say it, but for all cases where legal issues are involved,
>> >> please consult your lawyer.
>> > Hey, that's totally not fair here.
>> > This is being done by a community project, for which there are no
>> > lawyers.
>> > And does this mean that some lawyer is going to come after any developer
>> > who doesn't abide by the mythical "MeeGo" compliance rules?
>> > If so, great, what's happening with a few distros that are shipping
>> > "MeeGo" without using ConMan?
>> Fedora is planning on stripping the MeeGo logos and just using the UX
>> as if it was gnome/kde.
> I think that's the goal here for Smeegol as well. By doing that, you
> don't have to mess with any of the crap that people are trying to claim
> here, which is a very good idea.
>> > If nothing, then fine, we'll just ignore the empty lawyer threats.
>> > If something, then great, what exactly are the rules that need to be
>> > followed here?
>> We've asked and got very little response so with discussion amongst
>> ourselves we've decided on the above. Currently we're planning to
>> initially do the Netbook UX but there is interest in some of the
> Thanks for letting me know.
> So, that makes at least 2 community-based "respins" of the MeeGo netbook
> UX code. I guess if we don't even refer to the MeeGo stuff at all here,
> we should be fine.
> Although getting an "official" response from the LF would be good. If I
> don't hear back in a few days, I'll go start poking people...
As part of the discussion we had internally I believe RH legal spoke
to the LF and got some sort of response that it would be fine if we
complied with the requirements and kept getting referred to the
website and we complied with all open documented requirements but then
we got an off the cuff unofficial comment along the lines of "so your
going to support conman?" The closest I got was this architecture doc
 which will have all but conman and ofono. The last I don't see as
an issue as we're not a phone and we never intend on supporting the
application store as that's not what Fedora is about.
More information about the MeeGo-dev