[KLUG Members] Fwd: I was wondering when this would come to a point ...

[Adam Williams]

>Bruce & co might be interested in this as well ...

If I recall correctly, this is one of the reasons it is called "BS-Ware"

>RedHat is starting to make some legal moves on behalf of it's
>trademarked name.
>It was obvious to me that as Linux gained popularity, it would move more
>and more into the hands of the non-realist users.  It doesn't surprise
>me now that some clueless people who buy $2 RedHat CDs from indepedent
>Internet CD distributors are expecting support.  Especially when some
>distributors repackage RedHat differently, or in a way that may not
>match the original CD releases put out by RedHat.  Again, some people
>are just clueless, and always go looking for a brand name to blame,
>which finally leads companies into trying to address it. **
>So what does RedHat do?
>Well, as with every company, no matter how good or bad, the lawyers get
> involved and usually exploit the opportunity to the extent the law
>allows.  Some have even received cease and desist letters from RedHat's
>lawyers, orders that forbid them from mentioning RedHat's name at all on
>their CDs, and many are scratching their heads.  It's obvious that
>RedHat one of the biggest GPL software generating firms in the industry,
>and maintain a 100% GPL core product line (_unlike_many_ distributors
>who don't offer a 100% GPL version in an easy to download/burn ISO
>image).  But RedHat definately has a legal and marketing arm that easily
>matches Microsoft on a PR-level.

While Linux is Open Source, RedHat's name and trademarks certainly are
not.  They are free to "guard" their name in any way they see fit.  I've
see non-RedHat products use the RedHat name (i.e. "base on RedHat") and
I can image how that is annoying/frustrating for them.  If I was them I
would have called out for a smackdown some time ago.  I'm of the
minority opinion that Linux *needs* RedHat and IBM with their legal and
marketing arms.

>I think this is quite easily solved with a little tact.
>If the laywers at RedHat want to start getting "anal" about people using
>the RedHat name, I'm sure Linus will remind RedHat that Linux(R) is also
>a registered trademark that they gain free use of.  From there, we'll
>probably see some "reining of the laywers" with RedHat's management and
>the Linux community finally deciding what is best.  I would not be
>surprised if this finally ends in a compromise where the distributors
>are allowed to continue referencing RedHat, possibly in an "indirect"
>way (like "RHLinux version (blah)"), but must include a disclaimer both
>in print on the CD label side as well as in the README (as well as other
>files, possibly the installer) that this is not a RedHat Linux release
>nor is it supported by RedHat.

Nah,  this would be a poor compromise.  You just got done saying users
are dense,  which means this won't work.  Having released some (albeit
trivial) software I can attest to the fact that user's don't ever read
disclaimers, readme files, etc...  easily 90% of the questions I see on
the various lists I subscribe to (excepting OpenLDAP) are clearly and
obviously answered in the documentation.

Like my favorite from Samba - 
"You must use encrypted passwords if you intend to operate your Samba
server as a PDC.  You cannot use cleartext passwords (/etc/passwd) when
operating as a PDC"

Want to know what questioned is asked AT MINIMUM twice a day on the
Samba lists?

"Do I have to use encrypted passwords to be a PDC?"

Errrrr........
 
>But it won't surprise me to see some of the more "vocal" Linux bigots
>among us throw their weight around in a temper tantrum before all is
>said and done.  ;-PPP
>Story:
>http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/12/10/2014239&mode=thread

Oh sure,  but that is what makes it so much fun!