| 1 |
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 18:33 +0200, Camille Huot wrote: |
| 2 |
> In fact, if I understand correctly the terms of use of the Gentoo name |
| 3 |
> and logo (http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/name-logo.xml), such sites (if |
| 4 |
> not illegal by using gentoo in their domainname) HAVE to state |
| 5 |
> explicitly that they're not official Gentoo. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That is correct. An even better solution would be to have the |
| 8 |
guidelines amended to enforce an obvious distinction between official |
| 9 |
Gentoo documentation. I consistently have to remind people that |
| 10 |
gentoo-wiki is not owned, run, or maintained by Gentoo and has no |
| 11 |
official affiliation, at all. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
For example, on the main http://www.gentoo-wiki.com/Main_Page page, the |
| 14 |
notice about not being official is *tiny* and almost hidden in |
| 15 |
comparison to the other information on the page. Pick any other page, |
| 16 |
such as http://www.gentoo-wiki.com/Doom and you see no disclaimer, |
| 17 |
anywhere. While I do not believe that those guys are intentionally |
| 18 |
trying to fool anyone, as they've been very understanding and helpful |
| 19 |
any time I've dealt with them, it still does a disservice to Gentoo's |
| 20 |
users. By the way, not having the disclaimer on every page *is* a |
| 21 |
violation, AFAICR. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 25 |
Developer |
| 26 |
wolf31o2.org |
Archives