On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Matt Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 09:20:18AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > but, as i explained in an earlier posting, red hat *itself* refers > > to the product as "red hat linux" when you download it from red > > hat's own web site. > > So? We can do that. It's our trademark. Other people cannot. sorry, i didn't explain clearly what i see is the contradiction here. red hat's position (at least they way i've been reading it for some time), is that the name "red hat linux" does *not* just refer to the collection of bits on the CDs. instead, that name has been defined by red hat to refer to the software itself, *plus* the support one gets when one buys an official boxed set of the software. this is *certainly* the impression i've been getting from the numerous postings i've seen here (and elsewhere). and yet, red hat *itself* refers to the downloadable (non-supported) software available on its own web site as "red hat linux". as i see it, it's *red hat* that's confusing the issue by using the name to refer to two different things. as many folks have pointed out, anyone who has registered a trademark risks losing it if they don't actively protect it. now, IANAL, but it seems that one could make an interesting case here that red hat is not only *not* protecting its trademark, but is in fact actively diluting it by using the name "red hat linux" to refer explicitly to an object (the naked CDs) that they don't want anyone else to use the same name for. anyway, time to get back to doing real work. so far, i'm still pretty thoroughly unconvinced of the legal bedrock on which this whole trademark rests. rday
