[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: about anaconda

Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 22 December 2002 11:22 pm, Matt Wilson wrote:

> If your client wants Red Hat Linux then you should obtain and provide
> them a full boxed set.  If your customers are asking for Red Hat Linux
> then clearly there is some value there.  If they don't care about Red
> Hat Linux, by all means provide for them some stuff you downloaded for
> free from the Internet and burned on a CD-R.  But since that stuff
> isn't coming from us, you can't sell it as "Red Hat Linux".
> Let met get to the definition of Trademark:
>   A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of
>   words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and
>   distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of
>   others.
> Let me also say that the requirements we place on persons or
> organizations who reproduce and distribute the software we place on
> our web site is no different than that of many other groups.  For
> example, the Apache license:

Let me further confuse this issue, if I may...

I'm working on the RULE project. The aim of the project is to allow Red 
Hat Linux to be installed on older (unsupported by Red Hat) computers.

We distribute (non-commercially) only an installer. (As of the 8.0 
release, we also have to provide an i386 kernel package.) Use of the 
installer requires the end user to provide media containing Red Hat 
Linux. (Media in this case may be CDROM, FTP, HTTP, etc.) We make no 
claims that the installer is in any way supported or authorized by Red 
Hat. I've no problem adding a disclaimer explicitly stating that this is 
not supported or approved by Red Hat. 

The installation script installs base packages from the stock Red Hat 
Linux media. When booted, the system greeting says: "Red Hat Linux 
release $version". We refer to the installer as a low memory installer 
for Red Hat Linux. I'd hate to think that we would be reduced to calling 
it an installer for 'Pink Tie Linux', or whatever Cheap Bytes is now 
calling their disks. Or, like the pop artist Prince, "The Linux formerly 
known as Red Hat". ;)

So, my question is...
Is this "fair use" or a trademark violation? Obviously, for the past year 
that I've been working on this, I've been operating on the assumption 
that this is fair use. With the recent discussion, it seems prudent to 
get some clarification on Red Hat's position. Given that I expect to make 
exactly $0.00 on this project over it's lifetime, I'd hate to have to 
defend a trademark violation claim.

- -- 
- -Michael

pgp key:  http://www.tuxfan.homeip.net:8080/gpgkey.txt
Red Hat Linux 7.{2,3}|8.0 in 8M of RAM: http://www.rule-project.org/
- --
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]