On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 09:40:59AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > 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. We are protecting our trademark. Protection means not allowing external entities from using our marks. Providing software called "Red Hat Linux" for download builds market presence, which is valuable. We have considered changing the name of the download product. You don't want to know some of the names we've come up with... Cheers, Matt
