> As far as the trademarks go, Yellow Dog ships with all the > redhat-config-* tools and I don't think that trademarks have ever been > a problem. I'd really want a confirmed answer on this one. Just b/c something "hasn't been a problem" doesn't mean it won't become a problem. > Just dropping the 'redhat' won't work because not all of the tools > have '-config-' in the name such as redhat-logviewer and > redhat-install-packages. Just replacing 'redhat' with 'fedora' > doesn't really make sense if these tools are going to be used in RHEL > and other distros like Yellow Dog. Just using 'rhc-*' still seems to > carry a Red Hat connotation. > > I'd like to know what others think about this... I'm not sure what tack to take. I can definitely understand red hat (the company) desire to advertise who wrote the program in the program name. I also understand that widespread use of these programs in other distributions or even operating systems will be limited by their name. It might not be rational or reasonable but a lot of people will be resistant to using redhat-config-foo on debian or novell linux. Do you think logrotate or chkconfig would have made it into debian if they were redhat-rotate-logs and redhat-config-startup? For that matter would have alternatives made it into red hat if it had been debian-alternatives? I'm not certain it would have. Why don't the redhat-config-foo packages get names like anaconda or chkconfig or logrotate, with just symlinks in the packages to the binary names: so then you could have fedora-config-foo for the tab-completing lookup and for general user issues - but have that come as foostuff-1.1-1.noarch.rpm :) maybe that doesn't work, maybe it does. -sv