Re: GNOME trademark guidelines and user group agreement

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad cs toronto edu>]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Elijah Newren wrote:

> On 9/9/05, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad cs toronto edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, David Neary wrote:
> >
> > > Let's say that it was a mistake, or that distributing the foot under the
> > > GPL is incompatible with defending it as a trademark - what remedy do
> > > you think we should consider?
> >
> > Seems like that's what redhat does these days: releasing their
> > product which is Free Software, but you cannot redistribute due
> > to trademarks.  Don't flame me for what I just said, it's here:
> >
> >   http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html
>
> You can redistribute the source code for Red Hat's RHEL offerings
> and/or binaries you compile from it, IF you remove Red Hat's
> trademarks first (which yes, means it isn't RHEL any more, but it's
> close enough for many); see http://www.centos.org/ and others.

Indeed.  But the article discusses how magazines cannot
distribute RHEL.  Also, from the pre-Fedora days, there has been
a distribution called Pink Tie which was exactly Red Hat Linux
with trademarks removed and renamed.

Funnier is that you can get the source code for Fedora Core and
remove that silly End User License Agreement, and you have not
violated any laws...


--behdad
http://behdad.org/