51–58 of 58 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both. '...all parties settled on a co-existence agreement that stated that the Cornell-UVA project could use the name when clearly associated with open source software for digital object repository systems and that Red Hat could use the name when it was clearly associated with open source computer operating systems.' https://fedorarepository.org/about/our-history/
> The transferable agreement stipulated that each project must display the following text on their web site: [...] Looks like Cornell-UVA satisfied this by placing it on their about page. Red Hat on the other hand hid it on a dedicated legalese page nobody will read: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/ Not a good look IMO.
Directly linked from every page as Legal in the footer. What do you try to say; it almost feels you imply docs.fp.o is obscuring it?
To avoid misunderstandings, this repository is about a project at Cornell University named the Flexible Extensible Digital Object Repository Architecture (FEDORA), not a Red Hat one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was ready to be mad in the comments, now I'm mad but in the other direction.
It seems that in 2003 (when Fedora Linux first launched) this project was pretty obscure and early-stage, so it's hard to blame Red Hat for not having known about it then. This kind of thing just happens sometimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Due to their comparative popularity, it makes complete sense to me. You don't have people in HN comments for a new Fedora release going "Wait is this about the Digital Access Project?" What does "not a good look" even mean in this context? Getting tired of this phrase's overuse tbh. "Think of the optics" fell into disuse and I can't wait for this one to join it.
> What does "not a good look" even mean in this context? it's a kind way of saying they're being assholes?
A sibling commenter is right though: the Legal page is linked from the footer, I was looking in the wrong place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The transferable agreement stipulated that each project must display the following text on their web site: [...] Looks like Cornell-UVA satisfied this by placing it on their about page. Red Hat on the other hand hid it on a dedicated legalese page nobody will read: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/ Not a good look IMO.
So first of all IAARHL (and I do a lot of work supporting Fedora) but IANARHTL. That said, I have seen the actual agreement (but many years ago), which predates my arrival at Red Hat by some years, but don't have immediate access to it and am disinclined to hunt down a copy solely because of this thread. However, my recollection of it is that it was quite a bit more specific than the Cornell-UVA paraphrase as to wher…
My point is: Fedora is a great project, but it’s also so much more popular than FEDORA (I assume a lot of HN readers haven’t even heard about this second one before). It would be nice to mention them in just a tiny bit more prominent way – say, at the bottom of about page. But it’s really not a big deal either way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The transferable agreement stipulated that each project must display the following text on their web site: [...] Looks like Cornell-UVA satisfied this by placing it on their about page. Red Hat on the other hand hid it on a dedicated legalese page nobody will read: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/ Not a good look IMO.
> not a good look Directly linked from every page as Legal in the footer. What do you try to say; it almost feels you imply docs.fp.o is obscuring it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that in 2003 (when Fedora Linux first launched) this project was pretty obscure and early-stage, so it's hard to blame Red Hat for not having known about it then. This kind of thing just happens sometimes.
Fedora and Red Hat aren't super common or easily accessible anymore either, since they've made their choice as they're entitled to move towards enterprise.