[linux-elitists] BurnAllRedHat?

Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com
Thu Dec 13 13:49:28 PST 2001

begin Derek Vadala quotation:

> I think in this case it goes back to what a "reasonable person" would
> assume. 

Indeed, the Nolo Press wording recently cited strikes me as being a fair
guide to how a dispute on this would be decided, absent the "I'm bigger
than you are" clause.

After we remove the egregious shyster maximalism, Red Hat Software has 
a legitmate legal monopoly on its brand identity.  Still, companies like
Linux System Labs, Cheapbytes, and Linux Central shouldn't have to call
it "We Can't Tell You What It Is v. 7.2", when it presses and sells 
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/redhat-7.2-en/iso/i386/enigma-i386* .
Sorry, but that's waaaaay past the reach of trademark protection.

Companies like that have every right to say what's on such CDs they
sell, provided they do so in a fashion that makes clear it's not issued 
by Red Hat Software, Inc., and is not that firm's product.

Try this listing:

        Pete's CD pressings of Red Hat(R) 7.2 (not a Red Hat Software 

        We download the binary images from 
        and burn them, so you don't have to.  $1.99 per disc, plus
        applicable sales tax and shipping (2 discs, IA32 binary).
        Please note that this product is NOT being offered to you 
        by Red Hat Software, Inc., and that that company does not stand
        behind it or endorse it in any way.  We at Pete's Enterprises 
        do not claim any affiliation with Red Hat Software, Inc., and
        this is our product, not theirs.

I don't think any legitimate trademark objection could be raised to
that, as worded.  (IANATL.)

Rick Moen                     Emacs is a decent operating system,
rick@linuxmafia.com           but it still lacks a good text editor.

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list