On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 08:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Avoid claiming things like that unless you have the legal knowledge > about this. Dude, I'm brining up a very, very valid reason on why the name itself is going to be a reason. You can try to silence me on the hat issue, but the name itself is a serious loophole from a legal standpoint. Because it could very well be that Red Hat legal would have to force the change of the name sometime in the future. I'm not demonizing Red Hat at all, I'm pointing out something very, very valid. You can silence me now because you are thinking I am being argumentative. But make no mistake, some company in the future _will_ push the issue, and possibly force a name change on "Fedora(TM)" in the end. > Let me repeat this in a simple fashion. The decision to not use a hat > for Fedora has already been made for whatever reason it has been made. > Its not going to change. So lets move on Okay, let's move on ... Has anyone postured the legal loophole that a "Fedora(TM)" trademark no longer under the control and enforcement of Red Hat, might cause? I'm serious. This was my point, regardless of the illustration. In fact, the whole reason I even figured we could use a hat was because Fedora(TM) is controlled and enforced by Red Hat. If not, then not only is a hat not appropriate, but the name for a hat! Dude, you don't have to be a lawyer to put this together. If I'm running the Fedora Foundation, it's my #1 concern. -- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The best things in life are NOT free - which is why life is easiest if you save all the bills until you can share them with the perfect woman -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
