-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 22 December 2002 11:22 pm, Matt Wilson wrote: > If your client wants Red Hat Linux then you should obtain and provide > them a full boxed set. If your customers are asking for Red Hat Linux > then clearly there is some value there. If they don't care about Red > Hat Linux, by all means provide for them some stuff you downloaded for > free from the Internet and burned on a CD-R. But since that stuff > isn't coming from us, you can't sell it as "Red Hat Linux". > > Let met get to the definition of Trademark: > > A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of > words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and > distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of > others. > > Let me also say that the requirements we place on persons or > organizations who reproduce and distribute the software we place on > our web site is no different than that of many other groups. For > example, the Apache license: Let me further confuse this issue, if I may... I'm working on the RULE project. The aim of the project is to allow Red Hat Linux to be installed on older (unsupported by Red Hat) computers. We distribute (non-commercially) only an installer. (As of the 8.0 release, we also have to provide an i386 kernel package.) Use of the installer requires the end user to provide media containing Red Hat Linux. (Media in this case may be CDROM, FTP, HTTP, etc.) We make no claims that the installer is in any way supported or authorized by Red Hat. I've no problem adding a disclaimer explicitly stating that this is not supported or approved by Red Hat. The installation script installs base packages from the stock Red Hat Linux media. When booted, the system greeting says: "Red Hat Linux release $version". We refer to the installer as a low memory installer for Red Hat Linux. I'd hate to think that we would be reduced to calling it an installer for 'Pink Tie Linux', or whatever Cheap Bytes is now calling their disks. Or, like the pop artist Prince, "The Linux formerly known as Red Hat". ;) So, my question is... Is this "fair use" or a trademark violation? Obviously, for the past year that I've been working on this, I've been operating on the assumption that this is fair use. With the recent discussion, it seems prudent to get some clarification on Red Hat's position. Given that I expect to make exactly $0.00 on this project over it's lifetime, I'd hate to have to defend a trademark violation claim. - -- - -Michael pgp key: http://www.tuxfan.homeip.net:8080/gpgkey.txt Red Hat Linux 7.{2,3}|8.0 in 8M of RAM: http://www.rule-project.org/ - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+Bp15n/07WoAb/SsRAvmSAKCbquBQQ4mWlVVl6ysLEhpbLJCHIgCgjfhK AX0LxBVU8hBwn7tWsQFR4Nk= =Ki6r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
