[MeeGo-dev] Trademark compliance, name usage, etc.
pbrobinson at gmail.com
Fri Sep 24 08:57:32 PDT 2010
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Greg KH <gregkh at suse.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 04:23:30PM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Just because connman is a small component and has a fairly self-contained API
>> and predictable behaviour, it's not an exception to the rule. You must use the
>> components, all of them, in the same versions.
> Ah, so the same will be said for banshee and evolution as well? Oh
> wait, I see people replacing them already and no one putting up such a
> stink. Now why is that...
>> If an exception to connman is opened, then another will turn up for
>> bash, one for uclibc, and so forth, to the point that it fragments the
> Sounds good to me :)
> Seriously, the main issue here is the insistance that one must follow
> the rules, only to have the question "what are the rules" be answered as
> "we are still trying to figure that out, wait a few months."
Also it seems that the rules are being put in place so application
writers that write apps for the proprietary app store will have a
guarantee to work on all MeeGo variants but Fedora at least has no
interest in supporting the proprietary store and won't support it. In
that regard I can see why they want to have the guaranteed API but it
shows that there should be the equivalent to the Fedora secondary
"Fedora Remix"  trademark that allows us to credit the upstream
work but also indicate that we're not 100% compliant so if the user
wants things like the app store they should go elsewhere. Sort of like
what happens with Android and their market place.
> That doesn't work for a product that is currently shipping.
> And, to answer the private question a few people have asked me, "why are
> you asking all of these questions, why not just not use the MeeGo name
> at all?" Well, it's about recognizing the contributions of those that
> you build something on. I know not all people/companies do that all the
> time (present drivers of MeeGo included), but some of us want to do the
> "right thing" here.
> Unfortunately, they are making it impossible for us to do so, so I'm
> thinking that you will start to see "netbook" like respins of Fedora and
> openSUSE and other distros that might happen to look like they came from
> the MeeGo codebase, but not mention MeeGo at all. Sad it's had to come
> to this.
Agreed. See some of my comments above.
More information about the MeeGo-dev