Thu Dec 13 11:08:21 PST 2001
Rick Moen <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> But the Red Hat legal page claims that other vendors may not _mention_
> the words "Red Hat" in product information and related advertising.
> See: http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page8.html
So it does. The current legal page appears to differ quite a bit from
the old legal page, and no longer allows use of the name "Red Hat[R]"
in any way shape or form.
They even claim restrictions on "phrases that are like Red Hat[R]."
"Some examples of prohibited uses include, but are not limited to,
"Red Cap" Linux, "Sombrero Rojo" ("Red Hat" translated into Spanish)
Linux, "Redd Hatte" Linux, "RH" Linux, and "Green Hat" Linux."
So how far does the law actually say they can take this? If I call my
product "Black Hat Linux" is that confusing? What if I call it
"Polka-Dotted Beanie Linux"? Does this extend into other items of
headgear, such as helmets and visors? How about "Dunce Cap Linux"? Can
we mention clothing far removed from the head, like "Black Sock Linux"
or "Yellow Woolen Glove Linux"? The list just goes on and on.
Does anyone have a lawyer handy who could provide any case law
background for whether R** H** is backed up by precedent? Are there
any R** H** employees on this list who can explain why R** H** seems
to be intent on lowering it's market share?
I mean, I've been a R** H** loyalist for years. Even when everyone
else said they were corporate pigdog sellouts, I stuck by them. But,
legal though it may be, this kind of business horseshit is just
annoying. Stop wasting money on lawyers and work on making a better
By the way, the X server with 7.1 bites. It crashes daily, for *no*
reason. I might just go back to slackware.
Rusty Foster || "What am I doing?
email@example.com || I'm quietly judging you."
http://www.kuro5hin.org/ || -- Magnolia
More information about the linux-elitists