Since your project uses original (unmodified) Red Hat Linux CDs or other install media, and since it's not a commercial endeavor, this should be fine. Cheers, Matt On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 12:21:40AM -0500, Michael Fratoni wrote: > > 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.
