On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Matt Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 02:28:09AM +0800, John wrote: > > Unless I misunderstood something, if I acknowledge Red Hat's copyright > > claim, I'm misusing Red Hat's trademark. > > That is not correct. You have to remove any use of Red Hat's > trademarks from any product that you are selling for commercial gain. > Red Hat's corporate name in copyright statements is different. > > Cheers, > > Matt > > > However, I am _not_ a lawyer, and I _am_ easily confused. I'd really hat > > to have to explain to Professor Fels (who heads the body that enforces > > our Trade Practices Act) these CDs, which are perfect copies of Red Hat > > Linux, do _not_ contain Red Hat Linux. How can I argue that the contents > > of the CDs are different from one Red Hat sells? Or that the same CDs on > > offer at PLUG do contain Red Hat Linux, when I myself don't see the > > difference? > > Red Hat Linux, as a product, is more than the CDs that you have > burned. Representing only the CDs on a web-site for sell (or eBay, or > other corporate endeavor) as "Red Hat Linux" is false. Only the > software combined with the other goods and services that go into our > product can be called "Red Hat Linux", and the use of that mark to > advertise or endorse a product requires a trademark license from the > trademark holder (that is, Red Hat, Inc.) > > This is an important distinction that confuses a lot of people. > > Hope this helps. I do not understand how I can burn CDs for the local LUG and represent those as being Red Hat Linux, but if I sell them from my office, even at a lower price, I can't. I downloaded "Red Hat Linux" from one of your mirrors, and I believe I can properly claim to be running Red Hat Linux on all my computers that I installed from this source of software. I do not see how this is any less "Red Hat Linux" than what I might install for a client, nor what someone would get by buying a set of CDs from me. In all cases I and my client would have precisely the same product in any way I can interpret the term. I understand that I am entitled to copy Red Hat Linux CDs as many times as I like. Since I cannot see any difference between what I get by downloading the ISOs and burning CDs and what Jo Dow would have if she bought a set of CDs I created from the same images, I can only see that Red Hat seeks to use trademarks to limit the rights the GPL provides. The only confusion I see in the market is created by Red Hat. As best I can see it, if I claimed the CDs do _not_ contain the software called "Red Hat Linux" then I would be in breach of the Trade Practices Act. -- Please, reply only to the list.
