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.
It took me far too long to figure this out from their site, but when I did, the project looked far less interesting.
For a while there, I thought the "been in existence for 20+ years and our users represent an engaged, supportive and invested global community of users focused on sustainability and growth" was the Fedora Project extending their expertise in file organization and distribution to other use cases.
But on the bright side, I now have a link I can use to confuse my students with (to keep them out of their comfort zone and promote deep research).
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.
I feel like fedora is pretty accessible at this point. The main speedbump is enabling non-free repos but if you're helping someone install linux for the first time you just tell them to check that box during setup.
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.'
> 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/
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 where the parties expected the notice to appear. My further recollection is that it was the Cornell-UVA FEDORA that was not really complying with the letter of the agreement as to that issue, rather than the Fedora Linux Fedora, essentially the opposite of what you're saying. To settle this we'd have to get the agreement and do some Wayback Machine research, which I'm also disinclined to do at the moment.
Now, as to why it's on the Fedora Legal Docs site today, that's because a few years ago we undertook a significant migration of all "legal" content from the basically deprecated Fedora Project wiki to the newly created Fedora Legal Docs site. In general, such material is now much easier to find than it was in the wiki era (where it was spread across multiple wiki pages). I don't know when the trademark notice first came to be placed on the Fedora wiki, which itself didn't always exist, but I believe when Cornell-UVA and Red Hat signed the agreement, Fedora may have still been using a redhat.com site.
Yeah, I believe this is correct from the legal standpoint, and as long as both parties are okay with it, it’s alright with me.
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.
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.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying they’re being assholes. Fedora is a nice project after all. It’s just a bit sad to see the asymmetry here, especially since Fedora is so much more well known than FEDORA.
A sibling commenter is right though: the Legal page is linked from the footer, I was looking in the wrong place.
There is no issue except the one third-parties (such as HN commenters) are making out of it.
Fedora and FEDORA reached an agreement a long time ago. Unless I missed something, neither party has disparaged the other in that time. The parent comment is making drama out of literally nothing. Neither side cares so why is parent OP trying to stir shit up?
I stand corrected. I got lost in a huge amount of links in the footer of the homepage, but it is indeed linked to from another footer (which is, indeed, present on every page).
> 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?
I'm pretty sure it's not why it was rebranded; the timing doesn't make sense since the rebranding occurred several years after the trademark coexistence agreement.
The curious question though is why 389 was formerly called Fedora Directory Server. From what I've been told by someone who was around at the time (as I wasn't), it's because Red Hat went through a very brief period where it experimented with using the "Fedora" brand as a sort of general "upstream of Red Hat, sponsored by Red Hat" sort of community brand. This was I think quickly rejected as a bad idea but Fedora Directory Server was apparently the one (for a while) surviving example of the experiment. I imagine that the reason for the rebranding was that it was confusing to use the "Fedora" name at a certain point because the directory server project never really had anything particularly to do with Fedora (apart from the connection to Red Hat).
That website is asking for consent for allegedly anonymous statistics ("With your consent, we use cookies for anonymized statistics"). One doesn't need to ask for consent when you're not collecting personal data...
The only possible button is agree, but to read what you're agreeing to, you need to click agree first because this overlay also spawns on the privacy policy page that's linked from the cookie wall
The privacy information is also only available in German
On the other hand Spain is using Huawei servers for almost all of their sensitive data. I wonder how the UE, and NATO, will react to that, because they're using Huawei for Social Security data, wiretapping data (SITEL), or even Intelligence Services data.
Scale. Huawei has 1.4 billion customers just in China. They have double this around the world. The US and European markets have become small for the scale of next generations telecom.
'The white paper reveals a classic bait-and-switch operation in which Spain lures foreign talent by offering official certificates guaranteeing favorable tax treatment, then retroactively denies the legitimacy of those same certificates to impose tax bills up to ten times higher than originally expected. The Spanish Tax Authority, which goes by the acronym AEAT and is commonly referred to as "Hacienda," entices American businesses to set up shop in the country through desirable tax credits and incentives, then unfairly taxes the workers of those companies in perpetuity, long after their tenure in Spain has concluded.'
I'm curious to know about how the EU will handle 'the Spanish position with Huawei'. A lot of sensitive data is on Huawei servers already, like Social Security data, wiretapping data (SITEL), Intelligence Services data, etc.
I use a ubports phone as a daily driver, and in my experience the main showstopper is all those banks, and even all those public institutions, that make mandatory to be a Google or Apple client to deal with them.
So I also need to use another phone, running VollaOS, to handle my online payments but I'm afraid Google will close this option with their latest policies. We'll see.
reply