I would like to see guidelines around how rebranding/remixing would work, but this is a good first step.

:thumbsup:

I would like to see guidelines around how rebranding/remixing would work, but this is a good first step.

Would adding a link to the secondary mark guidelines at "not use the Fedora trademark" be sufficient for this?

For now, yes. I think that'd be sufficient. People should know how to swap to the Secondary Marks and the Generic Marks so that they can at least be in compliance.

PR updated with a link to the trademark guidelines.

Remove the unnecessary ?rd=Legal/Trademark_guidelines in the URL please.

Those assets MUST be added to the fedora-logos package.

This seems a bit weird as a MUST. If a package contains Fedora graphics, it should be OK not to ship such graphics at all.

Is it OK to remove such items in prep, or do they need to be stripped from the sources?

It is probably impractical to actually say that all usage of the Fedora logo qualifies as "trademarked use", because brutalizing things like FontAwesome will need to be explicitly not part of this guideline.

Remove the unnecessary ?rd=Legal/Trademark_guidelines in the URL please.

Done

This seems a bit weird as a MUST. If a package contains Fedora graphics, it should be OK not to ship such graphics at all.

I suppose I took that as a given. Would

Those assets MUST be added to the fedora-logos package in order to ship them.

be sufficient to make it more explicit?

It is probably impractical to actually say that all usage of the Fedora logo qualifies as "trademarked use", because brutalizing things like FontAwesome will need to be explicitly not part of this guideline.

Right, the intent is primarily trademark assets that Fedora packagers add. Would the following addition address your concerns?

"...or graphics that include the Fedora logo unless the upstream project has been granted use of the mark by the Fedora Council."

That would work for me.

This is getting into somethign a bit different (and I suspect better). What about bending it a bit further and splitting it by the use case:

1. I want to add a Fedora brandining into my package - you MUST NOT, you MUST use fedora-logos package instead.
2. Upstream includes Fedora branding - it MUST get Council approval, or else you should do this and that (e.g. strip it from sources, strip it in %prep, don't package it at all, ...)

1. I want to add a Fedora branding into my package - you MUST NOT, you MUST use fedora-logos package instead.

That's a good approach.

1. Upstream includes Fedora branding - it MUST get Council approval, or else you should do this and that (e.g. strip it from sources, strip it in %prep, don't package it at all, ...)

This is more difficult. There's not a list of "people who have been authorized to use the trademark" (there are Council tickets for some things, but it's probably not exhaustive since it misses older grants). And also there are cases in the law where people can use marks without authorization. So the practical effect of this is that we make packagers be the trademark police, which is not a fair position to put them in. It would probably also generate a lot of unnecessary Council tickets.

So maybe we continue to focus on the first use case and say something like:

Packagers MUST NOT add any Fedora trademark assets including the Fedora logo, Fedora logo icons, or graphics that include the Fedora logo. If the upstream contains Fedora trademark assets that you believe are used inappropriately, email legal@fedoraproject.org

This way the focus is on not adding them, and also gives people a path if they're worried about the usage in upstream?

I like that idea, can you update the PR accordingly?

PR updated. I left in the references to the fedora-logos package so that packagers know where to find logos (and put new assets that are needed).

:thumbsup: