logoalt Hacker News

fodmaplast Friday at 2:11 PM2 repliesview on HN

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/


Replies

notpushkinlast Friday at 2:38 PM

> 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.

show 3 replies
t90fanlast Friday at 2:39 PM

> 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.'

If it's as worded, I'm surprised Fedora Directory Server didn't end up being a problem for RedHat, as its not an OS, and you could call it a digital object repository system, I guess.

Or maybe thats why they re-branded it as 389 Directory Server?

show 1 reply