and the endless amount of users submitting bug reports too. I'm sure glad there's still other distros, there's no loyalty here.. On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, John wrote: > 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. > >
