Scott Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > > > "Leonard den Ottolander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Hi Rick, > > > > > > > This has always been RedHat's position; RH Linux can be freely > > > > redistributed but cannot be called RedHat. Nothing new, just a > > > > reiteration of what has always been true. > > > > > > 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". > > > > Also, "Red Hat Linux" is more than just the bits - eg. when you buy a > > system machine with Red Hat Linux, you should know that it comes with > > support, manuals, RHN (possibly on certified hardware as well, I'm not > > sure). It shouldn't be confused with a system where someone just > > downloaded the bits and installed it on the system. > > > > Disclaimer: I don't make these policies > > So, are they supposed to identify the CD's thusly: > > "This CD set consists of the enigma-disc1.i386.iso and > enigma-disc2.i386.iso files from ftp.redhat.com. > > That would be legal, I believe, but is it really what Red Hat > want's people to say?
Contacting Red Hat and asking for a distribution agreement (so we can say we're protecting our trademark) would probably go a long way towards solving this. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
