Large snippage, as I think the main problem here is a lot of confusion: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:52:13AM -0500, Ibrahim Haddad wrote: > > > Compliance is work in progress - please participate in the compliance > > > discussion thread to help shape the compliance efforts and please refer > > to > > > http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance for details and roadmap > > > information. > > > > That's great, but again, distros wanting to ship today shouldn't be held > > hostage to this process. Especially as MeeGo 1.0 shipped so long ago. > > > > > These are handled on a case by case where a distro would submit a written > statement confirming that they are using MeeGo core as-is (as previously > mentioned). Once compliance specs & tests are available end of next month, > the process will be much clearer and more automated.
But again, none of these usages (Fedora and openSUSE) is trying to call their distro "MeeGo" at all. They just wanted to call out that it is their distro (Fedora and openSUSE) with the MeeGo UX on top of it, for use on a netbook platform. There is no assumption by anyone here that this is a "MeeGo compliant" distro, as there is yet to be any such definite description of a thing. If you are saying that the term "MeeGo" can not be used, except by a distro that is "MeeGo compliant" then no one can use the term at this point in time because there is no such thing, including Intel and the Linux Foundation :) So, let me ask this a different way, for "respins" like Fedora and openSUSE are doing, how should they refer to them. "Based on the MeeGo UX components"? "Happens to look like the MeeGo screenshots, but we can't say the word 'MeeGo' because their lawyers are a bunch of raving hyenas"? Something else? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
