Hello Trond,
> > So how would one identify such a copy as being RedHat Linux?
>
> Right there, you're mentioning one thing which needs addressing. It's
> "Red Hat Linux". Not "RedHat Linux", not "Red Hat", not "RedHat" -
> it's "Red Hat Linux".
Still leaves me with the question how one could identify a (verbatim) copy as
being Red Hat Linux... If it is a verbatim copy it *is* Red Hat Linux, only it
does not come with support.
By the way, I do understand Red Hat exercising it's rights with concern to
their trademark in certain instances, where consumers are misled into
believing they are buying the real thing. But I don't believe this is the case
with http://www.unixcd.com or even http://www.cheapbytes.com. The former
clearly states this is not an official RedHat release and the latter doesn't
use the logo, just states the name to make clear what it is they are selling.
I know it must be annoying to handle support requests from people who didn't
buy the full product, but I think it would have been politer to explain these
redistributors the problem, and ask them to make it more obvious to the buyer
that they pay for the media, but not for support, instead of first threatening
with legal action.
But maybe this is a lot of fuzz about nothing, and Red Hat really only meant
to prohibit the use of the mark (logo), as someone stated, not the name as
such. Are you expecting any official public announcement soon?
Bye,
Leonard.
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
