Unofficial Fedora Spins [LWN.net]

By Rebecca Sobol
October 3, 2007

Multimedia support has been and will continue to be an issue in the free software world, at least in those countries that allow software patents. Many multimedia codecs are patented. There are many small Linux distributions that include multimedia codecs and they all tend to be hosted in Europe or elsewhere in the world where software patents are not recognized.

Fedora is a U.S. company and the U.S. does recognize software patents. Therefore Fedora does not play many multimedia files. We still have Ogg and FLAC providing free audio/video formats. However some people, many coming from the Windows world, expect their MP3s, and MPEG files to "just work" and they get frustrated when they find that these things are difficult. These codecs are not in the main Fedora repository, and never will be unless the U.S. suddenly reverses its decision on software patents (which doesn't seem likely).

The Fedora-devel list had a lengthy discussion this week about creating a Fedora spin with multimedia support out of the box. The poster, Jóhann Guðmundsson of Iceland, wondered if such a spin (hosted in Iceland) could be considered an official Fedora spin, and if not how much work would be involved.

Since Iceland is one of those ~~European Union~~ countries that currently does not recognize software patents, such a spin would be legal there. However, the official word, summarized in this post from Jesse Keating, is that official Fedora spins can only use the packages in the main Fedora repository. Otherwise they must be called something other than Fedora and must not contain any Fedora trademarks or official artwork.

For those who still think that creating the Fedora-based "MyBlueCap" distribution would be a good idea, here's some places to start. A new wiki page on creating custom spins has been recently created. It only addresses official spins, of course, but it's a start. The Fedora Trademark Guidelines will help you figure out if your spin crosses the line into unofficial territory. More guidelines on redistributing Fedora can be found here.

Changing the name of the project and replacing the artwork so that the new spin is no longer "Fedora" would seem to be a daunting task. But work is underway to make this easier. Feature generic logos are targeted for Fedora 8. According to the wiki page: "We want to enable generic branding for Fedora, such that a tree built without fedora-logos is still reasonably functional if done right, without excessive developer attention."

Even with the Feature Generic Logos, the creator of "MyBlueCap" still has much work to do. It is nice of Fedora to supply some logos, but ultimately the Fedora developers have plenty to do and should not be expected to divert their efforts towards making it easy to create unofficial derivatives with software that is not free everywhere.

Later on this page there is an interview with Clement Lefebvre, the creator of Linux Mint. Linux Mint (hosted in France) is making a Ubuntu derivative with all the multimedia codecs installed and ready to use.

to post comments

Unofficial Fedora Spins

Posted Oct 4, 2007 4:04 UTC (Thu) by filteredperception (guest, #5692) [Link] (1 responses)

I think this article missed an important point that I brought up in the fedora-devel thread. Namely, that it is possible to strictly adhere to the current fedora trademark and artwork guidelines, *AND* produce a custom spin with any arbitrary modifications.

The 'trick' is to follow the trademark guidelines which lay out a legal definition for how anyone and everyone is permitted to redistribute "non-modified fedora".

Specifically, you need to maintain the integrity of the original fedora software. I.e. provide the livecd (or other) .iso embedded in a new .iso completely unmodified. Then you need to merely bundle your own arbitrary patches in that iso, along with a custom bootloader configuration and initrd which make it as easy as selecting a LiveCD bootloader choice, for the end-user to cause the patches to be transparently applied early during the initrd boot sequence.

I think this idea scared Rahul a bit, and the trademark guidelines may be modified to prevent this in the future. But for now, my reading of those guidelines suggests that it is even acceptable to use the fedora name and logo in the custom bootloader splash/choice screen, of such a LiveCD. The guidelines were I believe put in place to specifically allow someone like Dell, to include arbitrary extra drivers and/or software. But really, any arbitrary 'patch' may be added. The trick is to just write software that is clever enough so that all the end-user has to do to apply the patch is select an alternate bootloader choice. And it really isn't that hard to do this.

Unofficial Fedora Spins

Posted Oct 11, 2007 16:33 UTC (Thu) by ofeeley (guest, #36105) [Link]

Your point was recorded in the Fedora Weekly News summary[1]. The Trademark Guidelines page which you mention as "disappearing" in your post was the transitional "rhold" one and the actual current one is available[2]. I don't think it changes the import of your argument though.

1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue103#head-c6add4564...

2. http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/

Unofficial Fedora Spins

Posted Oct 4, 2007 10:18 UTC (Thu) by cate (subscriber, #1359) [Link]

Since Iceland is one of those European Union countries

No, Iceland it is not in the European Union, like Norway, Switzerland, and other smaller European countries

Unofficial Fedora Spins

Posted Oct 11, 2007 8:45 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]

Even with the Feature Generic Logos, the creator of "MyBlueCap" still has much work to do. It is nice of Fedora to supply some logos, but ultimately the Fedora developers have plenty to do and should not be expected to divert their efforts towards making it easy to create unofficial derivatives with software that is not free everywhere.

I think you're confusing "is" and "ought" here. Outside of the condescending tone of the above paragraph (who exactly is "expecting" anything?), the fact that software isn't free somewhere doesn't mean that the software itself is bad: it means that the laws of the countr(y|ies) where it's not are. Software patents, in particular, are not a problem with the software in question but rather with the laws of those jurisdictions where it's possible to patent mathematical algorithms and computer software and prohibit independent reimplementation.

Put another way, I'm sure you could find countries where software such as GnomeSword (a Gnome-based bible study tool) or GPG is illegal; the former because of its relation to christianity, the latter because it's an encryption tool. Is this a reason why Fedora should ("should" in the ethical sense) not contain either software? It does contain both, but of course, the answer to the aforementioned question is a resounding "no".

The same is true for software that is illegal in - say - the USA: of course the Fedora developers can't bundle software that would get them into legal trouble, and nobody in their right mind would expect them to do so. But it should be kept in mind that this is due to the laws being what they are, and NOTHING else: if software patents were abolished in the USA tomorrow, then Fedora would (and should) certainly start including this software after all. The article, as written, unfortunately seems to miss this, instead dismissing Jóhann's efforts en passant ("For those who still think that creating the Fedora-based "MyBlueCap" distribution would be a good idea [...]").

Finally, the article makes the typical but not unexpected mistake of being too US-centric - and by US-centric, I don't mean that it focusses too much on the USA (which is understandable, given that Fedora is based in the USA) but rather that it sees the USA and its legal system as "the norm", with everything that differs substantially (such as Iceland's legal system that rejects software patents) standing out. The opposite is true, of course: not having software patents is what is natural, and even though it may or may not be the norm, one should recognise that software patents are unnatural. For a publication that's dedicated to free software, I'd have expected a bit more here: if you *must* accept the fact that software patents in the USA do exist in a fatalistic manner, at least recognise that other countries that don't have them are (still?) more enlightenend in this regard, and don't dismiss them as being strange, foreign, dangerous or scary because they don't slavishly mirror the US legal system and implement this kind of codswallop as well.

Oh, and as was already pointed out, Iceland is not a member of the EU. Mistakes happen, of course, and I'm not chastising you for not doing better research there, but I also think it's both a bit sad and telling that this obvious, factual mistake hasn't been corrected in an entire week even though it was pointed out right away when the article became available to subscribers[1].

Yes, I'm none anymore. Still wondering why?