[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trond Eivind Glomsrød) writes:
> Dominic Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> One obvious problem there is perception (not being in marketing,
> support, this is on my own behalf and my own thought, not backed by
> anything :): I believe the prices for those products
Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 7:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Cheapbytes
>
> rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 18 Dec 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > > I agree, you
cial support, what about everyone
> who downloads red hat linux *directly from red hat's site*
When you do that, you're pretty much aware of you're doing. You
haven't given anyone any money. If you have, you're much more likely
to expect something.
Personally (not s
g
> for an official boxed set are undoubtedly thinking hard about
> shelling out $59(?), or just a couple of bucks to cheapbytes.
It's less that it used to for the same product (the Deluxe
version for $89 or whatever it was). Also, if you've already decided
you want to get Red H
Dominic Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree, you can't pay 7.99$ fro the unofficial cd's and expect RH
> to provide any services. They already provided the service of
> putting out the distribution ...
>
> However, offering services for a fee for those that did not buy
> the official
> "rpjday" == rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
rpjday> IMHO, red hat is just confusing the bejeezus out of everyone by
rpjday> now. they should take a deep breath, step back, and try to come up
rpjday> with a coherent policy that *they* can follow. all i got out of
rpjday> the linuxto
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, rpjday wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> 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
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 ).
> Al
Hi,
> 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
Hi,
> a new posting at www.linuxtoday.com addresses the red hat trademark
> issue, just FYI.
The direct URL being
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/12/18/1741238&mode=nocomment
Bye,
Leona
king hard about
> shelling out $59(?), or just a couple of bucks to cheapbytes.
>
> red hat blew it here.
>
> rday
>
>
Yep! You can add me to the list too. I've been buying at least one
official boxset for every single major release since RH 4
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 01:06:32PM -0500, rpjday wrote:
> > while it may drive red hat nuts to get support calls from
> > consumers who got their red hat elsewhere, i think they just have
> > to suck it up and put up with it. ... that's just a nuisance
paying
> for an official boxed set are undoubtedly thinking hard about
> shelling out $59(?), or just a couple of bucks to cheapbytes.
>
> red hat blew it here.
>
> rday
In Canadian dollar that just 93$ and this does not include
shipping and handling. With 2 or 3 releases
and as has already been suggested elsewhere, red hat made an
obvious mistake in discontinuing a $29 basic boxed set. now
those who would have been happy to support red hat in paying
for an official boxed set are undoubtedly thinking hard about
shelling out $59(?), or just a couple of bu
I agree, you can't pay 7.99$ fro the unofficial cd's and expect RH
to provide any services. They already provided the service of
putting out the distribution ...
However, offering services for a fee for those that did not buy
the official cd's should bring some more revenues. It is up to RH
t
On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 01:06:32PM -0500, rpjday wrote:
> while it may drive red hat nuts to get support calls from
> consumers who got their red hat elsewhere, i think they just have
> to suck it up and put up with it. ... that's just a nuisance red
> hat is going to have to accept.
I said i
y that explanation pretty well
substantiates what i suggested. to take the mcdonald's/burger king
analogy a bit further, as long as cheapbytes does not claim an
official affiliation with red hat, it would seem they have every
right to say something like, "our RH linux is, actually, ne
> "Leonard" == Leonard den Ottolander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Leonard>Hi Ed, Thanx for the links. In regard to Robert's question
Leonard> I found an interesting link myself:
Leonard> http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page3.html :).
Well, I'm glad you like t
>>>>> "Leonard" == Leonard den Ottolander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Leonard> The problem with this particular case is that you have a GPLed
Leonard> content that can be freely distributed, but there is uncertainty
Leonard> on how to identify the
Hi Ed,
Thanx for the links.
In regard to Robert's question I found an interesting link myself:
http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page3.html :).
Bye,
Leonard.
> "Leonard" == Leonard den Ottolander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Leonard>Hi again Ed,
>> Instead, if you're unsure about how trademarks work, do what I did --
>> run a couple google searches with the appropriate search terms, and read
>> up on it...
Leonard> Did you find an
Hi again Ed,
> Instead, if you're unsure about
> how trademarks work, do what I did -- run a couple google searches with the
> appropriate search terms, and read up on it...
Did you find any sites of particular interest? Could you provide us with some
URLs?
ademarks work, do what I did -- run a couple google searches with the
> appropriate search terms, and read up on it...
The problem with this particular case is that you have a GPLed content that
can be freely distributed, but there is uncertainty on how to identify the
content. If people go to
hat can prevent someone like
> cheapbytes from selling a distribution of linux entitled
> "an unsupported but exact copy of red hat 7.2". they wouldn't
> be claiming it's red hat 7.2, just something bit-for-bit
> identical to it on the physical CD.
That sounds logica
Hello all,
I was originally going to post a long description of trademark law, but
rather than have people feel that my motives were more than to help shed
light on how trademarks works, I decided against it. Instead, if you're
unsure about how trademarks work, do what I did -- run a couple
On 17 Dec 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> "Leonard den Ottolander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > Cheapbytes currently announces the FTP version as:
> >
> > Looking for CDs containing the downloadable
> > version of the XXX XXX Linux
"Leonard den Ottolander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Cheapbytes currently announces the FTP version as:
>
> Looking for CDs containing the downloadable
> version of the XXX XXX Linux distribution?
>
> Hint: The name has to do with an article of cl
On 17 Dec 2001 17:16:57 -0500
"Edward C. Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David> Has the policy changed? I have a copy of Red Hat Linux 5.2
> around David> here that was sold by MacMillan, with explicit support
> disclaimers David> of course ...
>
> In those days, we had a relationship wit
> "David" == David Talkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Carter, Shaun G wrote:
>> This is most likely in response to the letter from Red Hat advising that
>> their version of Linux can be distributed, just not as the Red Hat name.
David> Has the policy changed? I have a copy of Red
Hi,
> > Has the policy changed?
> Yes.
Actually no. But they are enforcing it due to support requests from people
who bought FTP and/or trimmed versions. So they don't want copies of the FTP
version being called Red Hat Linux any more. This makes identification of
(verbatim)
ld by MacMillan, with explicit support disclaimers of
> course ...
Yes. See the thread "Red Hat: You can distribute Red Hat Linux, just name it
something else" from around last friday. Also have a look at
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/12/10/2014239
Cheapbytes currently anno
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carter, Shaun G wrote:
>This is most likely in response to the letter from Red Hat advising that
>their version of Linux can be distributed, just not as the Red Hat name.
Has the policy changed? I have a copy of Red Hat Linux 5.2 around
here that
I have bought from Cheapbytes in the past, and I recall they had some
legal issues on labeling the CDs as "RedHat". What they do is download the
iso image from RedHat and burning it for sale (AFAIR, there used to be
little differences on the official CDs and the images available to
: Cheapbytes
As someone bought an unofficial version of RH7.2 from cheapbytes?
I have not seen it explicitly on their listing. What I have seen
is:
Cheapbytes Linux x86 CPU Version 7.2 CD set:
which points to
Catalog No.: 0070010722
Publisher: CheapBytes
CheapBytes Linux x86 CPU Version 7.2 CD Set
As someone bought an unofficial version of RH7.2 from cheapbytes?
I have not seen it explicitly on their listing. What I have seen
is:
Cheapbytes Linux x86 CPU Version 7.2 CD set:
which points to
Catalog No.: 0070010722
Publisher: CheapBytes
CheapBytes Linux x86 CPU Version 7.2 CD Set
Our
35 matches
Mail list logo
