<html><body><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div>Dear All,</div><div><br></div><div>Can't we use the packagelist from RHEL 6 as an initial list of packages, which need to be "re-branded"?</div><div><br></div><div>Peter</div><div><br></div><hr id="zwchr"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;" data-mce-style="border-left: 2px solid #1010FF; margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: #000; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><b>Feladó: </b>"Kay Williams" <kay@deployproject.org><br><b>Címzett: </b>"The CentOS developers mailing list." <centos-devel@centos.org><br><b>Elküldött üzenetek: </b>Hétfő, 2014. Május 19. 0:29:48<br><b>Tárgy: </b>Re: [CentOS-devel] The Branding Hunt. Ed. 7<br><div><br></div>See comments at the end...<br><div><br></div>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-<br>> bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes<br>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:30 AM<br>> To: centos-devel@centos.org<br>> Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] The Branding Hunt. Ed. 7<br>> <br>> On 05/14/2014 03:29 PM, Kay Williams wrote:<br>> > Is there information somewhere on what has been done in the past,<br>> what<br>> > worked well, what didn't, etc?<br>> ><br>> > Would be nice if changes could be centralized in some way so that<br>> > folks wanting to make custom branded distros based on CentOS could<br>> leverage.<br>> <br>> Well, the goal is to change the minimal amount of things possible to<br>> meet both the requirements to redistribute the software (from the Red<br>> Hat trademark perspective) ... and also to meet the intent of the<br>> requirement.<br>> <br>> Here is the document:<br>> <br>> http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf<br>> <br>> Specifically we are looking at page 5 under the heading, "Publishing<br>> and Marketing Red Hat Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux Software That<br>> Has Been Modified"<br>> <br>> The exact rules are that "RedHat-Logos" and "Anaconda-Images" need to<br>> be changed. I have done this in a new centos-logos package that will<br>> be provided for review on git.centos.org. With that we meet the actual<br>> requirement of the PDF.<br>> <br>> But the intent is also that if something claims to be Red Hat<br>> Enterprise Linux, we should change it. Also, if the logo appears in<br>> things other than documentation within the distro we should change it.<br>> <br>> For example, if something says to submit a bug report to<br>> bugzilla.redhat.com, we would want to instead say bugs.centos.org, so<br>> we want to change this.<br>> <br>> But, if something is there because of copyright or to designate credit<br>> for work performed then we do not want to change it ... so, as an<br>> example, the About section of a LibreOffice app says: "This release<br>> was supplied by Red Hat, Inc." That is a true statement and does not<br>> need to be changed .. if it said "Created for Red Hat Enterprise Linux"<br>> or something similar, we would change the RPM to take that out.<br>> <br>> The SRPMs that we currently change will either start with the name<br>> centos, or have a .centos. in the name (the one exception being the<br>> kernel package .. we change it and we do not change the name so 3rd<br>> Party drivers supplied for booting the kernel will work with both the<br>> Red Hat and CentOS kernels.<br>> <br>> We also list the modified SRPMs in our release notes, so for the<br>> CentOS-6.5 release here is the list:<br>> <br>> http://bit.ly/1ljZd5I<br>> <br>> Thanks,<br>> Johnny Hughes<br>> <br><div><br></div>Hi Johnny, this all makes sense. <br><div><br></div>Is the thinking for centos7, then, to "assign out" chunks of packages to<br>reviewers/hunters, who when then look at sources for text/logos that should<br>be changed? <br><div><br></div>Would you want the reviewers to sign off for packages reviewed? How many<br>packages would be typical for a reviewer to handle in a volunteer-friendly<br>amount of time? How would branding hunting happen on an ongoing basis as new<br>packages are added?<br><div><br></div>This could be a pretty huge effort. And a little deflating for reviewers? A<br>bit like looking for a needle in a haystack. Perhaps some part could be<br>automated, say an initial pass over sources looking for variants of the text<br>"Red Hat" in text or file names, and then reviewers could look at just those<br>packages?<br><div><br></div>I can definitely contribute some hours to the effort. Just trying to<br>understand where/how to help and how people's time can be used wisely.<br><div><br></div>Thanks,<br>Kay<br><div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>CentOS-devel mailing list<br>CentOS-devel@centos.org<br>http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div></body></html>