TradeMarked Name --redhat-config-

[seth vidal]

> redhat is not a trademark.  Red Hat is, and so are the logos.  Those,
> that Red Hat needs to protect, are in separate packages, whose
> licenses are not the GNU GPL.  My understanding is that those that
> *are* GPLed can't be encumbered with trademark, just like they can't
> be encumbered by patents.  But then, IANAL, so my understanding may be
> off.
> 
> > GPL should protect you perhaps.
> 
> I'm convinced it does, for packages that are indeed released under the
> GNU GPL.  This is not the case of fedora-logos or anaconda-images,
> since their license is not the GNU GPL.  But then again, IANAL.

Does the GPL protect you?
http://www.open-mag.com/features/Vol_24/GPL/gpl.htm

not sure it does. Do any of the people who might want to help out want
have the money to find out if it protects you? I don't.

But let's drop this as a trademark issue and bring up a more solid
point, if there are new tools written by !red hat people why would this
programs be named redhat-config-something.

For that matter why fedora-config-something as 'fedora' JUST fedora is a
TM of red hat.

config-something seems fine to me, but somebrand-config-something seems
unnecessary.

-sv