From Fedora Project Wiki

The meeting was held in IRC Freenode #fedora-board-meeting at 1600 UTC.

Meeting Summary

  • New firmware licensing change: TomCallaway/ProposedFirmwareLicensePolicyChange
    • More narrowly focused on firmware exceptions
    • More explicit about terms that would make a software license unacceptable but are tolerated in a firmware license
    • Does not change any current package inclusion in Fedora, or packaging requirements
  • RESOLVED: Board agrees with licensing change
  • ACTION: Spot to bring question about how to handle user acceptance of firmware licensing

Questions and Answers

  • inode0: anyone read the new drupal trademark policy governing domain names? I'm still curious why Fedora can't grant this without a TLA if certain conditions are met by the community member ...
  • mchua: spot mentioned a "Fedora magazine" as a case of publication - I wanted to note that this issue may come up again soon, and would like to know what a publishing house (Linux Pro Magazine, or otherwise) would have to ask permission for, and what they could do without asking.
  • skvidal: what is the boards feelings on the chilling effects the TLA seems to already be creating? Are we worried that this damage may be greater than the damage of trademark dilution?
  • EvilBob: can't the trademark holder simply make a statement as to what is allowed rather than the solution that is being "strong armed" on to the community?
  • inode0: Has the board ever granted a non-software goods license to anyone for commercial use?

Other tasks:

  • stickster: See whether Legal is able and willing to publish information about cases of trademark infringement where our enforcement has had a positive effect
  • notting: To draw up some possible acceptance cases/tests for a commercial non-software goods license

#fedora-board-meeting log

stickster OK, I think we're still missing glezos, but let's go ahead and get started 10 Sep 12:01
stickster Roll call! 10 Sep 12:01
mmcgrath 10 Sep 12:01
* mmcgrath here 10 Sep 12:01
poelcat 10 Sep 12:01
* poelcat here 10 Sep 12:01
notting 10 Sep 12:01
* notting is here 10 Sep 12:01
caillon 10 Sep 12:01
* caillon hands stickster a roll 10 Sep 12:01
stickster mmm rolls 10 Sep 12:02
mdomsch 10 Sep 12:02
* mdomsch here 10 Sep 12:02
jwb 10 Sep 12:02
* jwb is 75% here 10 Sep 12:02
stickster jwb: noted, howdy 10 Sep 12:02
* stickster also sees spot, dgilmore 10 Sep 12:02
stickster OK, we only have one item on the agenda for today, which is a firmware licensing change proposal 10 Sep 12:03
spot wow, time flies. 10 Sep 12:03
stickster spot: No kidding 10 Sep 12:03
stickster TomCallaway/ProposedFirmwareLicensePolicyChange 10 Sep 12:03
stickster spot: Do you want to give people a summary? 10 Sep 12:03
spot okay, sure 10 Sep 12:04
* stickster notes that the page does this pretty well too 10 Sep 12:04
spot Basically, our old firmware policy was that as long as the firmware was "freely redistributable without restriction", the licensing was okay 10 Sep 12:04
poelcat do we have a url to the existing policy? 10 Sep 12:04
jwb it's in the proposal 10 Sep 12:05
stickster Licensing#Binary_Firmware 10 Sep 12:05
jwb under the section titled "Existing Firmware Licensing Policy" 10 Sep 12:05
spot I have been working to try and get some new CPU firmware under a license which is acceptable for Fedora 10 Sep 12:05
spot in the process of discussing this with Red Hat Legal, they pointed out that they thought it would be a good idea if we narrowed that down a bit more 10 Sep 12:05
spot The end result is that nothing currently in Fedora changes 10 Sep 12:06
spot but it is clearer to some folks who write firmware licensing that some of the particularly disgusting items that they like to put in those licensing texts will not be acceptable 10 Sep 12:06
spot as well as highlighting things that we would not accept as part of a software license, but are okay for firmware. 10 Sep 12:07
dgilmore 10 Sep 12:08
* dgilmore is here 10 Sep 12:08
mdomsch spot, by "some form of royalty-free use", does this mean if a firmware license said "non-commercial only" that would be OK? 10 Sep 12:08
spot no. 10 Sep 12:08
stickster Do I read this right, that we'd require firmware licenses not impose further restrictions on the receiver of our distribution that would be worse than what our policy requires? 10 Sep 12:09
dgilmore spot: but limiting it to the manufacturers hardware is ok 10 Sep 12:09
spot dgilmore: yeah, because at least that is mostly reasonable. 10 Sep 12:09
spot stickster: pretty much, yes. 10 Sep 12:09
mmcgrath How does one associate $FIRMWARE with $HARDWARE ? 10 Sep 12:10
mdomsch spot, do we then need the words "some form of" ? 10 Sep 12:10
spot mmcgrath: the licenses tend to do that. 10 Sep 12:10
mmcgrath is that explicitly listed in the license? 10 Sep 12:10
stickster spot: In other words, that protects redistributability of remixes, correct? 10 Sep 12:10
mmcgrath k 10 Sep 12:10
spot stickster: yes 10 Sep 12:10
* stickster apologizes for peppering spot with questions :-) 10 Sep 12:10
spot mdomsch: yes, because there are about twenty different ways to have a mechanism for "royalty-free use" 10 Sep 12:10
* stickster hates some of the firmware licenses on principle, but doesn't see anything that makes the new policy more objectionable. 10 Sep 12:12
mdomsch spot, then can we add "a non-exhaustive list of restrictions that Fedora considers unacceptable" ? 10 Sep 12:13
spot mdomsch: lawyers hate to do that 10 Sep 12:13
spot they'd rather have us do the inverse (which is what we did) 10 Sep 12:13
mdomsch yeah, thought so 10 Sep 12:13
mmcgrath bah, it's good for them :) 10 Sep 12:13
stickster i.e. Never underestimate what horrible things some manufacturer might require in the future that otherwise would cause us to have ugly contortions 10 Sep 12:14
spot the good news is that we add maybe 3 firmware components in a year. 10 Sep 12:14
spot so there isn't a huge influx of these awful licenses coming in for review 10 Sep 12:14
mmcgrath spot: as far as manufacturers go... is this problem going to get worse or better in the future? 10 Sep 12:14
mdomsch do firmwares to be added require FE-LEGAL approval before inclusion? 10 Sep 12:15
mmcgrath do we have any indications either way? 10 Sep 12:15
notting spot: does this change the packaging requirements at all? (doesn't look like it) 10 Sep 12:15
dgilmore mdomsch: only if the license is new 10 Sep 12:15
spot notting: no 10 Sep 12:15
jwb well 10 Sep 12:15
jwb possibly 10 Sep 12:15
jwb i gave the example of a noarch kernel-firmware package in previous discussion 10 Sep 12:16
spot mmcgrath: no real indication, honestly. 10 Sep 12:16
spot jwb: yes, and i said that probably wouldn't be possible. 10 Sep 12:16
spot but that probably wouldn't have been possible before this change 10 Sep 12:16
jwb hm. perhaps i misread what you wrote 10 Sep 12:16
spot it depends on the license texts of the firmware 10 Sep 12:16
spot if they're bound to the architecture (like CPU microcode), then we can't distribute it with s390, for example 10 Sep 12:17
spot if they're not, then maybe. 10 Sep 12:17
spot i would have to audit the licenses to be sure. 10 Sep 12:17
stickster spot: So there may be specific changes that are required in e.g. the kernel that need to be taken up with specific maintainers? 10 Sep 12:18
spot stickster: none that i am aware of at this time. kernel-firmware would be a new package. 10 Sep 12:18
spot (i'm 99% sure the firmware subpackage is okay as is) 10 Sep 12:19
jwb it also doesn't include the CPU microcode to my knowledge 10 Sep 12:19
stickster So is this policy then a legal/licensing issue requiring a Board vote? 10 Sep 12:20
spot sure, lets say it is. 10 Sep 12:20
* stickster trying to separate that from the packaging/engineering issues which are FESCo related 10 Sep 12:20
stickster or rather, clarify that it's separate 10 Sep 12:21
spot (as i said before, technically, the answer is "no", but i wanted the board to know about it and be okay with it) 10 Sep 12:21
caillon well in that case, a hearty +1 to acknowledge i'm aware 10 Sep 12:22
poelcat spot: are there any parts of the new policy in particular that the board should focus on? 10 Sep 12:22
stickster The way I see it, this is really a call for Board approval that these changes aren't undermining the overall Fedora stance on free software as it pertains to firmware 10 Sep 12:22
spot stickster: yes. 10 Sep 12:22
mdomsch and this lets us keep firmwares we might otherwise have to drop, that are quite useful to have (e.g. CPU ucode) 10 Sep 12:23
spot mdomsch: indeed. 10 Sep 12:23
stickster brunowolff asked a good question I want to relay here, on topic: 10 Sep 12:23
stickster How is it binding on the end user? 10 Sep 12:23
stickster That haven't agreed to anything. 10 Sep 12:23
stickster brunowolff: I believe the answer is, in the same way that you accept GPL licensing on software distributed under the GPL in Fedora (as an example) 10 Sep 12:23
spot indeed, stickster's observation is correct. 10 Sep 12:24
stickster brunowolff points out that the GPL triggers on redistribution, where my answer probably failed 10 Sep 12:25
spot to be fair, these licenses trigger on use. they are not Free licenses. 10 Sep 12:25
spot they also trigger on distribution, but sometimes with different terms for the distributor 10 Sep 12:25
stickster We might need to have a text in firstboot to support their use then 10 Sep 12:25
spot ehhhhh 10 Sep 12:25
spot i'll ask RH Legal 10 Sep 12:26
* stickster not sure either 10 Sep 12:26
spot but i don't think that is true. 10 Sep 12:26
stickster In the interest of time, let's note that's a separate issue that we'll vigorously pursue :-) 10 Sep 12:26
* stickster thanks brunowolff for the tipoff 10 Sep 12:26
spot and if it is, we have bigger issues (because they are used well before firstboot) 10 Sep 12:26
mdomsch I wouldn't want to see an AMD license popup to "agree to", if I'm on an Intel system, and vice versa 10 Sep 12:26
mdomsch that gets messy in a hurry 10 Sep 12:26
stickster So, so true. 10 Sep 12:26
spot mdomsch: the licenses do not require explicit agreement 10 Sep 12:26
mdomsch spot, which makes firstboot even less interesting 10 Sep 12:27
spot it is more of a "you get the right to use it under these terms." 10 Sep 12:27
stickster Let's note that this issue isn't limited to the firmware policy change, which is really what we're discussing. 10 Sep 12:27
stickster Can we take an approval vote at this point for the policy? 10 Sep 12:27
notting 10 Sep 12:27
* notting is +1 10 Sep 12:27
* stickster saw a +1 from caillon already 10 Sep 12:27
spot +1 10 Sep 12:27
mmcgrath 10 Sep 12:27
* mmcgrath is +1 10 Sep 12:27
poelcat +1 10 Sep 12:27
mdomsch +1 10 Sep 12:27
jwb +1 10 Sep 12:27
* stickster waits for dgilmore 10 Sep 12:28
dgilmore +1 10 Sep 12:28
stickster Thanks :-) Okay, that's 8-0 with one absentee. 10 Sep 12:28
stickster spot: So is it correct to say that you'll carry this through to packaging/FESCo as needed? 10 Sep 12:28
spot yes, although, it is not needed. 10 Sep 12:29
stickster OK 10 Sep 12:29
stickster Then that brings us to Q&A 10 Sep 12:29
stickster inode0 asked, 10 Sep 12:30
stickster anyone read the new drupal trademark policy governing domain names? I'm still curious why Fedora can't grant this without a TLA if certain conditions are met by the community member ... 10 Sep 12:30
stickster I think this is a good question, and I think it would be good for inode0 to raise it on FAB where we have an actual attorney present ;-) 10 Sep 12:30
spot also, it is worth noting that i doubt that was written by a lawyer 10 Sep 12:30
spot and it has an open ended "does not cover everything" hole at the bottom 10 Sep 12:31
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o stickster 10 Sep 12:31
--- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v inode0 10 Sep 12:31
stickster inode0: Sorry I relayed your question, which is the old method -- I should have voiced you here 10 Sep 12:31
inode0 to be clear I am not advocating that policy 10 Sep 12:32
stickster spot: Maybe also notable, it's govered by the laws of Belgium, which may have very different applicable laws 10 Sep 12:32
spot stickster: doubtful, EU trademark law is close enough for govt work. ;) 10 Sep 12:32
inode0 just inquiring about the idea of granting domain name use under certain conditions without signing a TLA 10 Sep 12:32
dgilmore This policy is governed by the laws and regulations of Belgium. 10 Sep 12:32
spot inode0: we can certainly ask about it, but i doubt that will fly. 10 Sep 12:33
stickster inode0: No, the question is good -- "Could we have something like <...>?" -- the answer to that is probably very relevant 10 Sep 12:33
dgilmore the laws in belgium on trademark enforcement are likely very different 10 Sep 12:33
stickster The answer may be, "No, and here's why: US law says ..." 10 Sep 12:33
spot also, worth noting, the way this is phrased is basically the same as the TLA 10 Sep 12:33
spot you're agreeing to this license by using the trademark in a domain name 10 Sep 12:33
jwb 10 Sep 12:34
* jwb notes he needs to step away for a second 10 Sep 12:34
stickster Thanks jwb, noted 10 Sep 12:34
notting it's also self-contradictory in places 10 Sep 12:34
spot notting: which is why i doubt that it was written by a lawyer. ;) 10 Sep 12:34
stickster They are offering a license *automatically* in some cases, and through a procedure in others 10 Sep 12:35
stickster There's not a case where you can do what you want, without a license 10 Sep 12:35
inode0 and so do we 10 Sep 12:35
notting point 2, vs. 5, point 2 10 Sep 12:35
inode0 we grant use automatically to publications for instance 10 Sep 12:35
spot ehhh, i wouldn't say we grant use automatically 10 Sep 12:35
spot a lot of that use falls in the realm of fair use. 10 Sep 12:35
stickster In the specific case of publications, right 10 Sep 12:36
inode0 well, we grant use without asking permission 10 Sep 12:36
stickster But we allow broad rights to use the trademark in other cases as well 10 Sep 12:36
spot for example, we would be rather unhappy if a publishing house started "Fedora Magazine" 10 Sep 12:36
spot all about Fedora and its bits 10 Sep 12:36
stickster I'm not sure if those rights are the same as a "license," that's something Pam would know though :-) 10 Sep 12:36
notting inode0: don't all our usage cases for TM license that people request fall under B. 4.? 10 Sep 12:36
spot notting: pretty much, yes. 10 Sep 12:37
stickster notting: A lot of them, yes -- or B.1. 10 Sep 12:37
notting which makes me think it ends up being not fundamentally different in practice. but would be good to get pam's opinion 10 Sep 12:38
mdomsch spot, not a good example, someone already has. :-) 10 Sep 12:38
notting being an actual lawyer and all :) 10 Sep 12:38
stickster I think inode0's question still has a good central question -- "Is it possible to automatically grant a license on certain uses, where the use is still governed by the license terms and trademark guidelines?". 10 Sep 12:38
* stickster reused the word "question" there, sorry. 10 Sep 12:38
stickster Oh crud. 10 Sep 12:39
* stickster apologizes, he forgot to start the meetbot. 10 Sep 12:39
spot stickster: that's one for the lawyer. 10 Sep 12:39
stickster spot: Absolutely 10 Sep 12:39
* stickster notes he'll take care of logs the old-fashioned way, promises to remember next time! 10 Sep 12:39
spot 10 Sep 12:39
* spot could put money on the answer, but i've been wrong before. 10 Sep 12:39
--- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v mchua 10 Sep 12:39
--- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v inode0 10 Sep 12:40
stickster inode0: Thanks for the question 10 Sep 12:40
stickster mchua: It's all you 10 Sep 12:40
spot inode0: congrats on your award, btw. :) 10 Sep 12:40
stickster 10 10 Sep 12:40
mmcgrath indeed, congratulations! 10 Sep 12:40
mchua spot mentioned a "Fedora magazine" as a case of publication - I wanted to note that this issue may come up again soon, and would like to know what a publishing house (Linux Pro Magazine, or otherwise) would have to ask permission for, and what they could do without asking. 10 Sep 12:40
mdomsch the board breaks into a rousing chorus of "for he's a jolly good fellow" 10 Sep 12:41
spot they need to talk to the RH lawyer. 10 Sep 12:41
spot simple as that. 10 Sep 12:41
stickster spot: Well, we do have this: 10 Sep 12:41
mchua For everything? Or just usage of the trademark? 10 Sep 12:41
stickster Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Publications 10 Sep 12:41
spot they should not assume they can do anything without asking, aside from what it listed in the existing trademark guidelines 10 Sep 12:41
mchua Republishing content, for instance - I'm not sure where that falls. 10 Sep 12:41
spot and if in doubt, ask. :) 10 Sep 12:41
mchua 10 Sep 12:41
* mchua nods. Noted. That's all I had. 10 Sep 12:41
stickster Republishing content is probably more governed under the contract terms with the magazine, as opposed to our trademark guidelines 10 Sep 12:42
stickster Trademark use *in* the content is subject to the terms at the link above, which basically say it's OK to refer to "Fedora," etc. in the text, as long as you're not implying or stating an endorsement by Fedora Project or Red Hat. 10 Sep 12:43
stickster And you follow the normal TM usage guidelines 10 Sep 12:43
stickster Does that help, mchua? 10 Sep 12:43
mchua stickster: it does, thanks. 10 Sep 12:43
stickster cool 10 Sep 12:43
--- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v mchua 10 Sep 12:43
stickster Southern_Gentlem: We have open floor right now, any burning questions? 10 Sep 12:44
stickster Okay... 10 Sep 12:45
stickster notting: Did you say that you had something all-other-businessy that you wanted to add if we had time? 10 Sep 12:45
stickster notting: Oops, hang on 10 Sep 12:45
--- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v skvidal 10 Sep 12:45
skvidal what is the boards feelings on the chilling effects the TLA seems to already be creating? Are we worried that this damage may be greater than the damage of trademark dilution? 10 Sep 12:46
skvidal and if anyone here says "what chilling effects" then I expect you aren't reading FAB list 10 Sep 12:47
jwb personally, i don't think we have much option at all. the trademarks are owned by a business, that business needs to protect it's trademarks 10 Sep 12:47
stickster I can only tell you that most of the folks with whom I've corresponded about it privately have been OK with it 10 Sep 12:47
poelcat 10 Sep 12:47
* poelcat hasn't interpretted f-a-b as "chilling" 10 Sep 12:47
stickster So I think we want to avoid thinking that a couple (well thought out) objections means a chilling effect 10 Sep 12:48
spot this is a necessary process, and we continue to work with the concerned parties to help resolve their concerns. 10 Sep 12:48
skvidal poelcat: really? Kober just dropping the domain and backing away doesn't seem like a chilling effect? 10 Sep 12:48
stickster Part of the point of having the discussion is to find problems and fix them, which is why we have an actual attorney involved, to cut down on "IANAL" noise :-) 10 Sep 12:48
dgilmore skvidal: i think there is a big disconnect between people from one country and another. as much as it sucks we have to manage the trademark or we risk losing it entirely 10 Sep 12:48
mdomsch I am glad we've been able to address many of the concerns 10 Sep 12:48
jwb skvidal, he thought the discussion was over for some reason. it isn't 10 Sep 12:48
notting neither have i. i understand that there are issues, but i am not seeing something as of yet that is causing significant effects on contribution 10 Sep 12:48
mdomsch the list went quiet as people were traveling 10 Sep 12:49
stickster skvidal: jwb: Actually, that case is not closed, but I feel reticent to share private email here for obvious reasons 10 Sep 12:49
skvidal my curiosity is this 10 Sep 12:49
poelcat skvidal: i think there are some people that have concerns, but I'm not clear what % of people have concerns of the total population of people dealing with the TLA 10 Sep 12:49
skvidal what do we (fedora) value more - protecting the trademark from potential abuse or encouraging people to make and revamp and remix our distro - contributing to it as we go? 10 Sep 12:50
notting skvidal: that sounds like a false dichotomy 10 Sep 12:50
caillon the only thing that worries me slightly is that there was one thread and then several other people jumped in with "me too, i also have another issue" 10 Sep 12:50
skvidal notting: I didn't say they were the only two options 10 Sep 12:50
mmcgrath I don't get what all the fuss is about, people can do whatever they want. It's when they want to start calling things Fedora where the problem comes in. 10 Sep 12:51
skvidal notting: but we seem to be presenting the 'dilluted trademark' bugaboo without any evidence that it has (or even will) happen 10 Sep 12:51
stickster skvidal: There's a lot of conflation in your question -- we value both -- for instance we have a Fedora Remix mark so people can do more of what they want without fussing with trademarks 10 Sep 12:51
notting skvidal: i see protecting the trademark in this way as the only option, unless we a) decide not to have a trademark or b) decide to fix trademark law 10 Sep 12:51
skvidal mmcgrath: afaict I can't setup a domain without incurring problems 10 Sep 12:51
jwb i see a very confusing use of the word 'we' 10 Sep 12:51
mmcgrath so call it 10 Sep 12:51
caillon so, i wonder how many other people have issues with the TLA, but i also wonder how many people would be doing things we definitely wouldn't want if it wasn't in place 10 Sep 12:51
stickster skvidal: The problem is that the trademark owner can't wait for dilution to try to solve the problem. 10 Sep 12:51
notting skvidal: a) seems problematic since we have a trademark now. b) is blocked on luis, or something. 10 Sep 12:52
skvidal notting: we can just choose to not enforce the trademark, right? just back away from it? 10 Sep 12:52
jwb skvidal, you need to ask Red Hat that question 10 Sep 12:52
skvidal notting: it feels like we're acting on the basis that there will be misuse when we've not yet HAD any misuse 10 Sep 12:52
stickster mmcgrath: Interestingly, we don't govern use of third-level domains, so you could conceivably have "" without a problem. 10 Sep 12:53
skvidal it's like banning all liquids in airports b/c some asshats screw around 10 Sep 12:53
mmcgrath stickster: that is facinating 10 Sep 12:53
notting skvidal: trademark enforcement law doesn't work that way... are you suggesting we intentionally let the trademark lapse? 10 Sep 12:53
skvidal stickster: but my point is the same - if I want to have a satire of fedora I can't use the name? 10 Sep 12:53
skvidal notting: yes 10 Sep 12:53
mdomsch skvidal, we have had problems with people making fedora-branded non-software goods w/o a license 10 Sep 12:53
skvidal mdomsch: and has the trademark rules actually STOPPED them? 10 Sep 12:53
skvidal s/has/have/ 10 Sep 12:53
skvidal mdomsch: has it been effective? 10 Sep 12:54
stickster skvidal: It's not that you can't but you'd have to get a license if it was a 2nd level domain name. 10 Sep 12:54
stickster skvidal: Yes, it has. 10 Sep 12:54
skvidal stickster: can you tell us about those cases, then? 10 Sep 12:54
stickster skvidal: That would be up to Red Hat Legal to do, not me. 10 Sep 12:54
skvidal stickster: okay, then please request that 10 Sep 12:54
skvidal I'd like to know of cases where the trademark rules have helped us 10 Sep 12:55
stickster skvidal: Sure, I'll be happy to request that 10 Sep 12:55
skvidal I'd like to be sure we're not practicing security theater around our trademark 10 Sep 12:55
stickster OK, skvidal, there are some other questions queued, should I move on? 10 Sep 12:56
skvidal that's fine. 10 Sep 12:56
--- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v skvidal 10 Sep 12:56
--- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v EvilBob 10 Sep 12:56
EvilBob can't the trademark holder simply make a statement as to what is allowed rather than the solution that is being "strong armed" on to the community? 10 Sep 12:56
notting first: i take issue with 'strong armed' 10 Sep 12:56
notting the prior situation was that *no* usage outside of fair use was allowed, and everyone was in violation 10 Sep 12:57
EvilBob notting: well that is fine, it is the way it can be described 10 Sep 12:57
spot the way that US trademark law works makes it very difficult/impossible to do that. 10 Sep 12:57
stickster As do I, especially given that we've had something like a dozen different people around the community happily sign the TLA without a problem -- but that doesn't mean there aren't problems, or that they shouldn't be fixed 10 Sep 12:57
stickster I'm pretty sure you need a lawyer to answer this question well, and that's why we have a discussion on FAB. 10 Sep 12:57
spot although, it may be possible to give some examples of what would be considered fine 10 Sep 12:57
EvilBob stickster: Every time I talked to you about this in the beginning you stated "We can take the name anyhow" 10 Sep 12:58
EvilBob stickster: that is strong arming to me 10 Sep 12:58
stickster EvilBob: I'll be happy to publish that correspondence if you'd like 10 Sep 12:58
stickster I think if you look at the context, you'll see that what I said was that we were trying to make sure that no one was operating under an unseen sword of Damocles 10 Sep 12:58
dgilmore 10 Sep 12:58
* dgilmore needs to go run some errands in 2 minutes 10 Sep 12:58
stickster where the trademark owner wasn't even liberalizing use so that people using the TM would know what they could or couldn't do 10 Sep 12:59
EvilBob spot: I accept your answer, I was just looking for an option, question closed. 10 Sep 12:59
stickster EvilBob: Would you like me to publish those emails? I just want to be clear on that going forward. 10 Sep 12:59
notting EvilBob: so, do you mean something along the lines of the aforementioned drupal page? 10 Sep 12:59
mmcgrath 10 Sep 12:59
* mmcgrath would like to see them 10 Sep 12:59
stickster mmcgrath: That would not be fair to EvilBob. I just want to make sure that my statements aren't being misunderstood or taken out of context. 10 Sep 13:00
mmcgrath 10 Sep 13:00
* mmcgrath understands. it's completely up to EvilBob. 10 Sep 13:00
EvilBob IMO they were not a case of public communication 10 Sep 13:00
stickster EvilBob: Right, I'd agree, and that's why I want to know if you'd like to make them so 10 Sep 13:01
jwb then bringing them up here is slightly bad form. 10 Sep 13:01
mmcgrath k, then AFAIK based on what's been said. You've not been strongarmed but told legal facts that you didn't care for. 10 Sep 13:01
EvilBob if you choose to share them with your employer and they share with co-workers so be it 10 Sep 13:01
stickster EvilBob: I would never do that, as I think you know. 10 Sep 13:01
mmcgrath 10 Sep 13:01
* mmcgrath doesn't want to see them without both parties permission. 10 Sep 13:01
* stickster notes that he continued to use his GMail account, as always, so that he retains full control over his email for Fedora-related work 10 Sep 13:01
EvilBob anyhow the question was answered by spot 10 Sep 13:02
mmcgrath EvilBob: do you still describe our actions or stickster's actions as strongarming you to do some action? 10 Sep 13:02
mmcgrath 10 Sep 13:02
* mmcgrath feels this point is important. 10 Sep 13:02
EvilBob mmcgrath: the concept of "we can do what we want if you sign or not" was presented several times 10 Sep 13:03
mmcgrath EvilBob: and as it was presented to you, I assume was were using it to force you to do something? That's what strongarming is. 10 Sep 13:03
EvilBob mmcgrath: this can be seen in the treads on the topic on the FAB list 10 Sep 13:03
stickster And I maintain that the context was not, "sign this or else," it was, "we are trying to make it possible for you to continue doing exactly what you do now, without fearing that anyone will swoop in on you." 10 Sep 13:04
mmcgrath I've seen it on the list, and yes. Red Hat owns the trademark, as such. AFAIK, we can take it away from people. 10 Sep 13:04
stickster I am perfectly willing to snip out the pieces of email I wrote, and publish my statements. EvilBob, would you do the same? 10 Sep 13:04
mmcgrath How is is that strongarming? 10 Sep 13:04
mmcgrath EvilBob: do you still describe our actions or stickster's actions as strongarming you to do some action? 10 Sep 13:04
caillon if you come over to my house, i can throw you out whether i invited you in or not. that's different from "pay for the pizza else i'll throw you out" 10 Sep 13:04
jwb please refrain from food based analogies during lunch hours 10 Sep 13:05
EvilBob mmcgrath: given two options, sign or we will/can take it... 10 Sep 13:05
jwb 10 Sep 13:05
* jwb is starving 10 Sep 13:05
caillon heh, sorry 10 Sep 13:05
poelcat EvilBob: what would a better way be? 10 Sep 13:06
mmcgrath EvilBob: is that not the reality of trademark law? 10 Sep 13:06
stickster Not sure the metaphor was apt anyway 10 Sep 13:06
mmcgrath I understand you don't like it. 10 Sep 13:06
EvilBob mmcgrath: the attitude has changed in the last few weeks 10 Sep 13:06
mdomsch that's not a power I want to see us invoke; if we've gotten there, we're seriously broken. 10 Sep 13:06
mmcgrath I've not seen any attitude at all from us, we're trying to be compliant with trademark law. 10 Sep 13:06
mdomsch and in far deeper ways than just trademarks 10 Sep 13:06
* stickster notes that in reviewing his email, he sent several "open door to discuss" emails to which he never got a response. How is that a change in attitude? 10 Sep 13:08
EvilBob stickster: there were also several conversations in IRC that gave the opinon at that time the case was closed 10 Sep 13:09
stickster No, that was never the case, and I'm sorry that's what you took away from the conversation. 10 Sep 13:09
poelcat What is a constructive path forward from here? 10 Sep 13:09
poelcat IOW, what are our next steps on this issue? 10 Sep 13:10
stickster poelcat: I think we can continue to accept and discuss issues with the TLA on the FAB list as we've been doing 10 Sep 13:10
stickster And in addition, as I posted there, we're actively soliciting people to contact us privately if that's more comfortable for them. 10 Sep 13:10
EvilBob poelcat: at this time I feel we are now interacting, dealing if you will, with the right people to handle the issue 10 Sep 13:11
notting what stickster said </edit>. we appear to have veered off into a discussion of past communications, which is not something we can take an AI to change 10 Sep 13:11
EvilBob notting: it is not the direction I wished to go, I simply wanted to look at, ask about an option 10 Sep 13:12
poelcat okay, it sounds like we're good and can go on to next question? 10 Sep 13:12
EvilBob please 10 Sep 13:12
stickster I believe so 10 Sep 13:12
--- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v inode0 10 Sep 13:12
--- stickster (n=nnpaul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v EvilBob 10 Sep 13:12
stickster inode0: Did you have a question pending? 10 Sep 13:14
stickster I thought I saw one 10 Sep 13:14
inode0 A quick question that occurred to me during the discussion with skvidal 10 Sep 13:14
inode0 Has the board ever granted a non-software goods license to anyone for commercial use? 10 Sep 13:14
stickster inode0: For commercial use? Hm, I don't think so 10 Sep 13:15
inode0 Is that a deal breaker or is the board open to it in the right circumstance? 10 Sep 13:15
mdomsch we've certainly rejected a few folks who have come, with incomplete proposals, for such 10 Sep 13:16
stickster I don't think it's necessarily a deal breaker -- I think we haven't seen someone come to us from inside the Fedora Project to do something with it 10 Sep 13:16
mdomsch inode0, I'm open to it, but there would have to be significant benefit for fedora to do so 10 Sep 13:17
stickster It's a good question though, licensing someone else to profit from the Fedora trademarks 10 Sep 13:17
inode0 In the cases I'm thinking about the whole point is to promote Fedora 10 Sep 13:17
mdomsch "hi, I sell t-shirts, and want to make money selling shirts with your logo please" - uh, no. 10 Sep 13:17
jwb hm 10 Sep 13:18
inode0 There are expenses to producing coffee mugs and such - I'm not really thinking about department stores :) 10 Sep 13:18
notting maybe? 10 Sep 13:18
jwb mdomsch, how does the brand fuel agreement significantly help fedora? 10 Sep 13:18
mdomsch notting, that's already covered 10 Sep 13:18
notting mdomsch: selling shirts along with preinstalled boxes is covered? 10 Sep 13:18
mdomsch jwb, I don't think the board was involved in the brand fuel deal, and I certainly know nothing about it. 10 Sep 13:19
stickster Nope, that predates even the Board I think 10 Sep 13:19
inode0 If a "Fedora Store" were to get off the ground some funds would need to be raised early on in order to stock items for example. 10 Sep 13:19
jwb so brand fuel is the black sheep of agreements. that's sort of sad, given that it's what things are often compared to 10 Sep 13:19
notting although perhaps we can take an AI for stickster and/or mspevack to attempt to follow the money and see where it goes? 10 Sep 13:19
inode0 It is difficult for volunteers to work on such things if they need to worry about having $50 left over. 10 Sep 13:20
stickster inode0: Unless it was through an "on-demand" house, which significantly lowers the money at risk, might raise consumer cost somewhat, and is easy to start up 10 Sep 13:20
mdomsch I'm not opposed to there being a commercial entity that sells Fedora-branded schwag 10 Sep 13:20
mdomsch but I'd expect there to be a business relationship that benefits Fedora in that 10 Sep 13:20
* stickster wonders whether we can just bless a CafePress and be done with it 10 Sep 13:20
inode0 on demand I think is not going to happen for any of us who care about the quality of the merchandise 10 Sep 13:20
stickster inode0: If you cut out the on-demand option -- which is not automatically an unreasonable route to take -- it automatically means more work and has bookkeeping implications. 10 Sep 13:22
mdomsch notting, no, shirts+boxes is not directly covered. boxes alone is. 10 Sep 13:22
notting mdomsch: ok, sorry - i wasn't being clear 10 Sep 13:22
stickster inode0: Which is why we've kept going down that path without having the effort bear fruit. 10 Sep 13:22
inode0 stickster: right, which is why it becomes more likely if someone can run a little side business 10 Sep 13:23
notting mdomsch: was wondering if changing the operator from 't-shirt megastore' to 'fedora pre-install vendor' in the 'i want to sell t-shirts' question changes the answer 10 Sep 13:23
inode0 10 Sep 13:23
* inode0 doesn't have any such person in mind, mind you :) 10 Sep 13:23
stickster notting: Not sure it does. 10 Sep 13:23
inode0 just wanted to be clear on whether this was something that might be possible, thanks I believe it is 10 Sep 13:24
stickster inode0: Yes, I believe it is too -- maybe not easy, but certainly possible 10 Sep 13:24
stickster inode0: Thanks for the questions 10 Sep 13:24
notting stickster: or, in the case of the pre-install vendor, replace t-shirt with 'case badge' or 'laptop decal' 10 Sep 13:24
mdomsch notting, I'd be open to a contract that allowed such, on a per-contract basis 10 Sep 13:25
mdomsch not blanket though 10 Sep 13:25
notting stickster: basically, circling back - i can see a potential case where the board would approve non-software goods 10 Sep 13:25
notting even if we haven't approved one ye 10 Sep 13:26
notting even if we haven't approved one yet 10 Sep 13:26
stickster notting: I think it might be good for us to draw up something saying, "Here are some cases we can foresee saying 'yes'" 10 Sep 13:26
stickster notting: Willing to do that? 10 Sep 13:26
notting stickster: sure, i can write up some examples, and circulate to the board for consensus 10 Sep 13:27
stickster notting: Thanks, appreciate that 10 Sep 13:27
stickster I don't think we have anything left in queue, so unless there's any other business...? 10 Sep 13:27
poelcat 10 Sep 13:27
* poelcat would add that if we go the route of approving vendors we might be better off having only *one* for each type of purpose so it is easier to manage quality, relationship, etc. 10 Sep 13:27
notting stickster: do you want this before or after we discuss the pending item in the board queue related to this? 10 Sep 13:28
stickster notting: If you can draw up something before, that would be helpful I think 10 Sep 13:28
stickster before next week's meeting, I mean. 10 Sep 13:28
notting ok 10 Sep 13:29
stickster All right, let's call it then 10 Sep 13:29
stickster poelcat: By the way, I'm a soft +1 to your suggestion there 10 Sep 13:30
stickster Only because I haven't thought about geo issues 10 Sep 13:30
stickster OK, if there's nothing further, we'll end the meeting in 5 10 Sep 13:30
stickster 4 10 Sep 13:30
stickster 3 10 Sep 13:30
stickster 2 10 Sep 13:31
stickster 1 10 Sep 13:31
stickster </meeting> 10 Sep 13:31
stickster Thanks everyone for coming, and for your questions 10 Sep 13:31
mmcgrath 10 Sep 13:31
* mmcgrath out 10 Sep 13:31
stickster The next public IRC meeting will be on Thursday, Oct 1 at 1600 UTC/12pm US-EDT 10 Sep 13:31

Generated by 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!