On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 13:14, seth vidal wrote: > > 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. Ok, here's the word from the legal department: "Red Hat never asked anyone to change the package names in the manner that we tell them that they cannot redistribute RED HAT LINUX under the RED HAT brand name without a written agreement with Red Hat. At the same time, we recognize the confusion this may cause, and Red Hat will endeavor to amend package names to remove the "redhat" reference as new releases permit." So it was bad practice for us to put the 'redhat' name into the package names in the first place. I am asking for clarification about 'fedora'. It is possible that the same trademark problems that exist with the 'redhat' name will exist for 'fedora' as well. At the moment, I'm leaning toward Andre's suggestion of "system-config" Cheers, Brent > > 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 > > > > -- > Fedora-config-list mailing list > Fedora-config-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-config-list