On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, rpjday wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > clearly, red hat itself it calling the downloaded product "red > hat linux", yet just as clearly, they will not be offering > support for it. > > IMHO, red hat is just confusing the bejeezus out of everyone by > now. they should take a deep breath, step back, and try to come > up with a coherent policy that *they* can follow. all i got > out of the linuxtoday story is that red hat is still trying to > figure out what to do. i sincerely hope they can come up with > a solution that doesn't antagonize loyal users.
Clearly the real solution is for Red Hat to give a name to the "downloadable" version. At this point, "Red Hat Linux" doesn't indicate a boxed set or the download version; it's totally gray. Take a point from Turbolinux, where you have Turbolinux Server and Turbolinux Server, GPL edition. A simple branding fix is all that's needed here, not lawyers making a mess of things. I won't even go into the whole "Linux isn't Red Hat's trademark" thing. $.02, Bill Carlson -- Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Anything is possible, Virtual Hospital http://www.vh.org/ | given time and money. University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics | Opinions are mine, not my employer's. | _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
