On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Furthermore - RedHat themselves distribute "RedHat Linux 9" as > free downloads from their site, without any accompanying > support. As such, it is them (the trademark holder) that > decided that the specific ISOs can be called "RedHat Linux 9". > Unless copyright law says I cannot distribute them (and I think > there is a clear consensus here that this is not the case), I > can distribute them AND call them RedHat Linux 9, because > that's what they are. > > Am I missing something here?
Shachar, Here's the missing link, as far as I understand it: you're not distributing abstract code, but rather a physical medium, and bitwise identity between two media does not make the products identical, just like molecular identity between two products does not make them identical. This is why manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals are not allowed to use brand names, despite the fact that their products are exact copies of the original. You can consider your copies to be a generic distro, identical to Red Hat in all aspects that are relevant to the user. I don't understand the legal implications of the trademark permission for non-profits. I wonder what would happen if a pharmaceutical company gave a similar exemption, say gave blank permission to use their brand name to all manufacturers who distribute the product at-cost in developing countries; I don't know how this would affect their defense of the trademark against for-profit generic manufacturers. -Ron. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Haifa Linux Club Mailing List (http://www.haifux.org) To unsub send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
