[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trond Eivind Glomsrød) writes:
> Dominic Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> One obvious problem there is perception (not being in marketing,
> support, this is on my own behalf and my own thought, not backed by
> anything :): I believe the prices for those products
Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 7:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Cheapbytes
>
> rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 18 Dec 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > > I agree, you
rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> not that i want to flog this any further (well, ok, that's exactly
> what i want to do), but if red hat's complaint is that they're
> having to deal with people who purchased red hat elsewhere and
> tell them they have no official support, what about everyone
rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 18 Dec 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
>
> > I agree, you can't pay 7.99$ fro the unofficial cd's and expect RH
> > to provide any services. They already provided the service of
> > putting out the distribution ...
> >
> > However, offering services for a
Dominic Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree, you can't pay 7.99$ fro the unofficial cd's and expect RH
> to provide any services. They already provided the service of
> putting out the distribution ...
>
> However, offering services for a fee for those that did not buy
> the official
> "rpjday" == rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
rpjday> IMHO, red hat is just confusing the bejeezus out of everyone by
rpjday> now. they should take a deep breath, step back, and try to come up
rpjday> with a coherent policy that *they* can follow. all i got out of
rpjday> the linuxto
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
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> > http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/12/18/1741238&mode=nocomment
>
> So UnixCD is now advertising it as "RH Linux", which RedHat explicitly seems
> to "forbid" (see http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page4.html ).
> Al
Hi,
> http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/12/18/1741238&mode=nocomment
So UnixCD is now advertising it as "RH Linux", which RedHat explicitly seems
to "forbid" (see http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page4.html ).
Although I am not sure why one couldn't use
Hi,
> a new posting at www.linuxtoday.com addresses the red hat trademark
> issue, just FYI.
The direct URL being
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/12/18/1741238&mode=nocomment
Bye,
Leona
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, rpjday wrote:
>
> and as has already been suggested elsewhere, red hat made an
> obvious mistake in discontinuing a $29 basic boxed set. now
> those who would have been happy to support red hat in paying
> for an official boxed set are undoubtedly thinking hard about
> shel
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 01:06:32PM -0500, rpjday wrote:
> > while it may drive red hat nuts to get support calls from
> > consumers who got their red hat elsewhere, i think they just have
> > to suck it up and put up with it. ... that's just a nuisance
rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 18 Dec 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
>
>
> and as has already been suggested elsewhere, red hat made an
> obvious mistake in discontinuing a $29 basic boxed set. now
> those who would have been happy to support red hat in paying
> for an official box
On 18 Dec 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> I agree, you can't pay 7.99$ fro the unofficial cd's and expect RH
> to provide any services. They already provided the service of
> putting out the distribution ...
>
> However, offering services for a fee for those that did not buy
> the official cd's
I agree, you can't pay 7.99$ fro the unofficial cd's and expect RH
to provide any services. They already provided the service of
putting out the distribution ...
However, offering services for a fee for those that did not buy
the official cd's should bring some more revenues. It is up to RH
t
On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 01:06:32PM -0500, rpjday wrote:
> while it may drive red hat nuts to get support calls from
> consumers who got their red hat elsewhere, i think they just have
> to suck it up and put up with it. ... that's just a nuisance red
> hat is going to have to accept.
I said i
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> Thanx for the links.
> In regard to Robert's question I found an interesting link myself:
> http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page3.html :).
while i am not a lawyer, i'd say that explanation pretty
> "Leonard" == Leonard den Ottolander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Leonard>Hi Ed, Thanx for the links. In regard to Robert's question
Leonard> I found an interesting link myself:
Leonard> http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page3.html :).
Well, I'm glad you like t
> "Leonard" == Leonard den Ottolander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Leonard> The problem with this particular case is that you have a GPLed
Leonard> content that can be freely distributed, but there is uncertainty
Leonard> on how to identify the content. If people go to Cheapbytes they
Leonard
Hi Ed,
Thanx for the links.
In regard to Robert's question I found an interesting link myself:
http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page3.html :).
Bye,
Leonard.
> "Leonard" == Leonard den Ottolander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Leonard>Hi again Ed,
>> Instead, if you're unsure about how trademarks work, do what I did --
>> run a couple google searches with the appropriate search terms, and read
>> up on it...
Leonard> Did you find an
Hi again Ed,
> Instead, if you're unsure about
> how trademarks work, do what I did -- run a couple google searches with the
> appropriate search terms, and read up on it...
Did you find any sites of particular interest? Could you provide us with some
URLs?
Hi Edward,
> I was originally going to post a long description of trademark law, but
> rather than have people feel that my motives were more than to help shed light
> on how trademarks works, I decided against it. Instead, if you're unsure about
> how trademarks work, do wha
Hi Robert,
> does this protection of the name extend to anyone who wants to,
> say, write a book on red hat administration, or a course?
Na. They just don't want you to sell copies of their CD's as being Red Hat Linux.
> frankly, i don't see how red hat can prevent someone like
Hello all,
I was originally going to post a long description of trademark law, but
rather than have people feel that my motives were more than to help shed
light on how trademarks works, I decided against it. Instead, if you're
unsure about how trademarks work, do what I did -- run a couple
On 17 Dec 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> "Leonard den Ottolander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > Cheapbytes currently announces the FTP version as:
> >
> > Looking for CDs containing the downloadable
> > version of the XXX XXX Linux distribution?
> >
> > Hint: The name has to do with
"Leonard den Ottolander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Cheapbytes currently announces the FTP version as:
>
> Looking for CDs containing the downloadable
> version of the XXX XXX Linux distribution?
>
> Hint: The name has to do with an article of clothing
> to keep your head warm.
How can
On 17 Dec 2001 17:16:57 -0500
"Edward C. Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David> Has the policy changed? I have a copy of Red Hat Linux 5.2
> around David> here that was sold by MacMillan, with explicit support
> disclaimers David> of course ...
>
> In those days, we had a relationship wit
> "David" == David Talkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Carter, Shaun G wrote:
>> This is most likely in response to the letter from Red Hat advising that
>> their version of Linux can be distributed, just not as the Red Hat name.
David> Has the policy changed? I have a copy of Red
Hi,
> > Has the policy changed?
> Yes.
Actually no. But they are enforcing it due to support requests from people
who bought FTP and/or trimmed versions. So they don't want copies of the FTP
version being called Red Hat Linux any more. This makes identification of
(verbatim)
Hi David,
> >This is most likely in response to the letter from Red Hat advising that
> >their version of Linux can be distributed, just not as the Red Hat name.
>
> Has the policy changed? I have a copy of Red Hat Linux 5.2 around
> here that was sold by MacMillan, with explic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carter, Shaun G wrote:
>This is most likely in response to the letter from Red Hat advising that
>their version of Linux can be distributed, just not as the Red Hat name.
Has the policy changed? I have a copy of Red Hat Linux 5.2 around
here that
I have bought from Cheapbytes in the past, and I recall they had some
legal issues on labeling the CDs as "RedHat". What they do is download the
iso image from RedHat and burning it for sale (AFAIR, there used to be
little differences on the official CDs and the images available to
download fr
This is most likely in response to the letter from Red Hat advising that
their version of Linux can be distributed, just not as the Red Hat name.
Shaun
-Original Message-
From: Dominic Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 4:13 PM
To: Redhat
Subject: Cheapby
34 matches
Mail list logo
