On 21 Dec 2002, Peter Bowen wrote: > On Sat, 2002-12-21 at 17:03, John wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Matt Wilson wrote: > > > > > Red Hat Linux, as a product, is more than the CDs that you have That is not what Red Hat says: Red Hat Releases Red Hat Linux 8.0 Red Hat's Latest Release Delivers Leading Edge Technologies, User-friendly Interface for Personal and Small Business Computing RALEIGH, NC-September 30, 2002-Red Hat, Inc. (Nasdaq:RHAT) today released Red Hat Linux 8.0, a highly versatile operating system designed for personal and small business computing. Red Hat Linux 8.0 combines leading-edge Linux technologies with a new graphical look and feel that offers users a polished, easy-to-use operating environment. the document goes on to describe key features, all of which are available to anyone who downloads the software. See http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2002/press_eightoh.html > > > 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.) As far as I can tell from the document you mention, I cannot properly describe what I have without infringing the Red Hat trademark. > > > > 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. > > The answer lies in the grant of permission to use trademarks by Red Hat, > Inc. located at > http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page9.html That is part of the series od documents that confuses me. The selective grant of permission discriminates against business folk. > > Here you will see that for LUGs, personal use, internal business use, > and several other situations, including non-commercial distribution you > are allowed to use Red Hat, Inc.'s trademarks. However, if you are > charging more than the cost of duplicating the CD and a reasonable > handling fee, then you are commercially selling a product. I'd hate to be called on to discuss in court the merits of what I do if I should either supply a set of CDs I burned or install it for a fee and provide support myself. Supplying and supporting is one of the ways the FSF says one can earn money from free software, and that is precisely what Red Hat is doing. It seems to me it's trying to impede me from doing the same thing with its own contributions to free 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. > > The basic problem is in the definition of "Red Hat Linux". According to > Red Hat, who decides what it means, it is a product that contains > "service level agreements and other documents" along with the CDs > themselves. For Red Hat Linux 8.0, the products on their web site all > contain at least 30 days web-based support from Red Hat, Inc, a least a Those are special Red Hat Linux packages such as: Red Hat Linux 8.0 Personal Red Hat Linux 8.0 Professional The Cheapskate's Edition (my term) does not carry any such support, though I gather one is entitled to attach _one_ machine to the RHN free of charge. > 30-day basic subscription to Red Hat Network, some printed > documentation, plus at least 6 CDs. See > http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page6.html for the > source of the quote above. > > If you just duplicate the CDs and sell them as "Red Hat Linux" you are I see a problem if I represent it has having more support from Red Hat than it does, then I see I have a problem (and that irrespective of trade mark infringements), but as far as I can see, what's on the CDs is just as much Red Hat Linux as what I can download from the Red Hat website. If I read a magazine article about Red Hat Linux, then I don't expect that there's in implicit "including printed manuals and 30 days support" (except in the case of a product reviews where those things get mentioned). I've been helping out on Red Hat's lists (without payment) for years. I've never thought anyone asking about RHL was in any sense referring to Red Hat's support offerings, except when they were the particular top of discussion (in the same way this trademark issue is now). I _always_ think they're talking about the software, and _never_ make any assumptions about how they came by it. > depriving the customers of a large portion of the product. Customers > have a reasonable expectation that if they go to store A to buy product > X, that it will be the same product X that they could get in store B. > > > 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. > > You are entitled to reproduce and distribute the CDs that come with Red > Hat Linux. However, as I explained above, the CDs alone are not Red Hat > Linux. I don't think that this is in any way restricting the rights you > have under the GPL, as Red Hat has granted sufficient permission to > allow duplication. You are welcome to duplicate the entire CDs, intact, > and distribute them on a non-commercial basis. The GPL gives me explicit rights to source code, to redistribute software (either modified or unmodified) for any charges I may agree on with my clients. Duplication alone is not the issue. I wish to provide Linux and services. The distribution of Linux with which I'm most familiar is Red Hat. The fees and services I offer are between me and my clients. > > > 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. > > Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the Trade Practices Act, but I can't > see how claiming that something is product 'foo', when in reality is is > 50% of 'foo' could be considered to be good trade practices. The announcement document I found on Red Hat's website describes two different products, neither of which is called "Red Hat Linux." They are: Red Hat Linux 8.0 Personal Red Hat Linux 8.0 Professional I recall another notice describing where to download Red Hat Linux 8.0. AFAIK there is nowhere to download either Red Hat Linux 8.0 Personal or Red Hat Linux 8.0 Professional. As best I understand it, "Red Hat Linux" is a family of packages, some boxed sets, one free to download. -- Please, reply only to the list.
