On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > > http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/12/18/1741238&mode=nocomment > > So UnixCD is now advertising it as "RH Linux", which RedHat explicitly seems > to "forbid" (see http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page4.html ). > Although I am not sure why one couldn't use the name "Green Hat Linux". It's > obviously a pun on the name Red Hat, but it is in no way confusing or > misleading. "Red Cap Linux" is a more appropriate example of a "misleading" > name.
not that i want to flog this any further (well, ok, that's exactly what i want to do), but if red hat's complaint is that they're having to deal with people who purchased red hat elsewhere and tell them they have no official support, what about everyone who downloads red hat linux *directly from red hat's site*???? clearly, red hat itself it calling the downloaded product "red hat linux", yet just as clearly, they will not be offering support for it. IMHO, red hat is just confusing the bejeezus out of everyone by now. they should take a deep breath, step back, and try to come up with a coherent policy that *they* can follow. all i got out of the linuxtoday story is that red hat is still trying to figure out what to do. i sincerely hope they can come up with a solution that doesn't antagonize loyal users. rday _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
