On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 11:08, Tom Diehl wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Tom Georgoulias wrote: > > > Thomas Dodd wrote: > > > > > I'm still not sure why cheapbytes had to modify the set. > > Because the name "Red Hat Linux" is a trademark and Red Hat Linux says you > cannot use it without their permission. > > > Me neither. The ISOs are exactly the same, right? They just aren't > > call it "Red Hat Linux" or anything close to that. > > IMNAL but: > I do not think they can distribute the copyrighted Red Hat logos without > specific permission from Red Hat. AFAIK this includes things like bluecurve > and anything with the shadowman logo on it. > <nitpick clarification> It's my understanding that the Bluecurve artwork itself is GPL'd, so it may be distributed. The *name* "Bluecurve" is trademarked, so the themes need to be renamed. Although some work is needed to repackage the icons/themes/etc. into a trademark free package, given that many of the bluecurve icons are named "redhat-*.png". Such packages do already exist, however, generally named either "Wonderland" or "Freecurve". </nitpick clarification> > So unless they got that permission they would have to rm the applicable > packages. AFAIK this applies to anyone except "Offical Red Hat Linux Mirror > sites" Red Hat's web site specifically gives them permission to redistribute > it. > > IIRC Mike Harris gave a good description of this stuff on either psyche or > phoebe mailing lists a while back. > > HTH, > > -- > .............Tom "Nothing would please me more than being able to > tdiehl@xxxxxxxxxxxx hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market > with good software." -- Bill Gates 1976 > > We are still waiting .... -- Michael Knepher <limbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
