On Thu, 2002-12-26 at 21:03, John wrote: > > use internally. Once you start calling it "Red Hat Linux" externally, > > you have entered into the marketplace wand you cause confusion as to > > the origin of the product that you're providing. > > You keep saying much the same thing, without addressing the points I > raise. > > Red Hat has chosen to apply the GPL to its CDs, to the content of the > minimum package called "Red Hat Linux." In choosing to apply the GPL you > grant me permission to unconditionally reproduce and redistribute the > software, altered or not, for fee or not. > Red Hat does NOT apply the GPL to its CD's. It cant because that would make ALL the content on it GPL'd.. IE apache, X11, and all those other non GPL software. It applies the GPL to most of its software, but not to the patches where the GPL would conflict with the parent softwares license. The package redhat-logos is NOT GPL'd and can only be redistributed via its license. > Despite your assertion at one point to the contrary, the term "Red Hat > Linux" is widely held to be the a set of software prepared by and > released by Red Hat. When one wants to be specific, one may say "Red Hat > Linux 8.0" or "Official Red Hat linux Operating System" or similar. > Not good enough for trademark laws. If I remember correctly this was the route that one revendor was going to take, but was told by its lawyers that they didnt have a leg to stand on. > If I market this set of CDs as being "Dingo Linux" and not "Red Hat > Linux" then I probably contravene our Trade Practices Act. > Get a lawyer then. Your TPA will either be in conflict or have exceptions to deal with the trademark treaties that are in the Commonwealth and several international trade treaties with the US. > Didn't you, Matt, say that you cannot use the name "Apache" to promote > your packaging of the web server of that name? Of course not, Apache is > listed on the box of my Official Red Hat 5.1 Linux Operating System. > The problem with apache was brought up by the Apache group sometime in the 7.x area. They gave RH permission to use the name for the existing products, and Red Hat made the change to httpd for RH 8.0 etc. > It seems to me that Red Hat is seeking to prevent people from competing > with it by using trademark law (or at least, Red Hat's interpretation of > it) to prevent people from describing what they offer. > Get a lawyer. You do not have a clue about trademark law, and you are asking non-lawyers to give you legal opinion or confirm yours. At least ask the FSF to explain it to you.. > I may be thicker than most, or I may be more paranoid than others, or > even I may have a better appreciation of the problems for us than > others, but I think the list is still the best place for it. > > At this time in my business, I have absolutely _no_ money to pay in > licence fees, even if I felt it a reasonable thing to do. People should > not be required to pay licence fees where Red Hat, in the same way, > benefits from the work of others without payment of licence fees. > I don't see where Matt mentioned license fees. In any case, I will say one more thing: Get a lawyer... It might not sink in, but I hope it does. -- Stephen John Smoogen smoogen@xxxxxxxx Los Alamos National Labrador CCN-2 B-Schedule PH: Ta-03 SM-261 MailStop P208 DP 17U Los Alamos, NM 87545
