On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Matt Wilson wrote: > 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... Red Hat is making profit from the efforts of two groups of people, without any requirement to pay either of them: 1. The authors of free software, many who have chosen to release their software under the terms of the GPL 2. People who have spent time on these lists, and on usenet, providing free support for Red Hat Linux. Some have been doing this for many expectation of any financial reward. Without the support of both of these groups of people, Red Hat would not have a business at all. I don't want to make a business of selling copies of Red Hat Linux that I've burned myself, though should someone want it I would expect to be allowed to do so. While I think the charge I might make for those CDs is nominal, I'd hate to rely on Red Hat thinking so. OTOH if the charge I made was comparable to the cost of an official boxed set, then I might as well sell official boxed sets. If Red Hat can protect its trademake _and_ allow me to call these CDs "Red Hat Linux" at the local LUG, then I don't see how it cannot alow allow me to call these same CDs "Red Hat Linux" in my office. I think that Red Hat is doing its supporters a great disservice. According to the GPL, " When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things." According to Red Hat, "The following copyright applies to the Red Hat Linux compilation and any portions of Red Hat Linux it does not conflict with. Whenever this policy does conflict with the copyright of any individual portion of Red Hat Linux, it does not apply." Both these statements are in the document "GPL" on Valhalla, disk 1 The GPL gurantees my right to redistribute subject software altered or unaltered, for fee or not, and it's that right I wish to exercise. Matt's reference to Apache is irrelevant because Apache isn't GPL software whereas Red Hat Linux is. Then saying I cannot call the software I installed from unoffical CDs "Red Hat Linux" is as sensible as saying I cannot call Matt "Matt." I'm one among many who has contributed more to Red Hat than I'd ever have done by payment of licence fees, and I feel very badly done by. -- Please, reply only to the list.
