On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 11:40:49AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 8/3/07, Daniel de Kok <danieldk at pobox.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 07:57 -0400, Jim Perrin wrote: > > > On 8/3/07, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Being that we (ATRPMS/CentOS) are working together on some projects > > > > already and if you are interested in doing this MythCentOS project under > > > > the CentOS umbrella, then we can discuss this among the Core CentOS > > > > group ... but I think we would agree to allow a MythCentOS to exist and > > > > use the CentOS name. > > > > > > Gets my vote. > > > > If Axel is interested, I agree that it would be nice to look if that can > > be worked out. > > > > Well I think Axel's question though does cover some other issues though. > > What are the CentOS trademark guidelines? Currently there do not seem > to be any listed on the website. There do not seem to be any in the > included product, and there does not seem to be a registered > trademark. I know this gets into the murky area of law, ip etc.. but > it does come up and people's assumptions that they can use it for > anything they want because it is not OBVIOUSLY registered, protected, > or guidelined.. I think CentOS should register the trademark in the countries this is most important (US + EU?) and offer a review dependent usage: If a derived product/project like mythcentos or maybe centosfirewall, etc. wants to make use of trademarks/artwork it should offer the final product for a check by centos-devel and get the blessing. I wouldn't suggest any blanket approvals though, CentOS should always have the final say to check whether this step would potentially harm the brand instead of strengthening it. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20070803/c1e8b2f1/attachment-0007.sig>