On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 08:34 -0500, Brian Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 12:28 +0000, jb wrote:
> > Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle:
> > More RedHat Legal Shenanigans with CentOS
> > http://nerdvittles.com/?p=8721
> >
> > Closing the Book on CentOS: [...]
> > http://nerdvittles.com/
> >
> > Thanks to the author of the above articles.
> The author of those pieces needs to read a bit closer. His claim:
>
> In a nutshell, the new RedHat Terms of Service outlaw use of
> CentOS in any product “unless the combined distribution is an
> official CentOS distribution.”
>
> is not supported by any evidence he provides. What is made clear is
> that one cannot use the CentOS marks (ie logos, etc.) in a derivative
> distribution.
>
> Seems to be much sound and fury...
Do you mean Red Hat's ownership of the Centos brand name prohibits
something like this example
http://nerdvittles.com/wp-images/piaf20642.gif ?
(source: http://nerdvittles.com/?p=5844)
Why does Red Hat need to 'own' the Centos brand name and do the Centos
maintainers, who work hard on Centos for all our benefit, possess the
legal ownership - individually or collectively - of the Centos brand
that was, or is, being transferred or sold or donated by them to Red Hat
Inc. ?
If the Centos maintainers do not own the Centos brand name, which entity
does and which entity has the legal ability to give away to a third
party complete ownership of the brand name ?
Thank you.
--
Paul.
England,
EU.
Our systems are exclusively Centos. No Micro$oft Windoze here.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
