Re: Cheapbytes
[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 would be higher. > > Right now, the reason for the price of the boxed product is that just > a certain fraction (I don't know how much) use the support. If > everyone did, the price would be higher - it's like insurance that > way. If you sell the same support agreement to someone already having > downloaded it, chances are they need it. > > (and when reading the rest, I saw you already had mentioned some of > that. Oh well :) Well after some years of studying economics (Ph. D. ) I should have consider of these aspects :) Cheers. -- Dominic Mitchell ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: Cheapbytes
I sure would like to see the official $30-$40 versions come back. Did someone do some marketing and see that raising the prices would increase profits? I mean, obviously he was right, cause profits are up. > -- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 7:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Cheapbytes > > rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 18 Dec 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote: > > > > > I agree, you can't pay 7.99$ 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 > > > to decide what is the proper price for those services. Anyway > > > they won't prevent the redistribution of their ftp version Linux. > > > Thus might might as well grab the opportunity for more revenues. > > > > 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 bucks to cheapbytes. > > It's less that it used to for the same product (the Deluxe > version for $89 or whatever it was). Also, if you've already decided > you want to get Red Hat Linux in the store, chances are you'll get the > edition there. At least that's what I hope :) > -- > Trond Eivind Glomsr> ød > Red Hat, Inc. > > > > ___ > Redhat-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > not that i want to flog this any further (well, ok, that's exactly > what i want to do), but if red hat's complaint is that they're > having to deal with people who purchased red hat elsewhere and > tell them they have no official support, what about everyone > who downloads red hat linux *directly from red hat's site* When you do that, you're pretty much aware of you're doing. You haven't given anyone any money. If you have, you're much more likely to expect something. Personally (not speaking for Red Hat), I see less problems with Cheapbytes etc[1] than with OEMs. If you pay a good chunk of money for something of which Red Hat Linux is a part, the name is meant to symbolize QA, docs, support etc, not just "foo downloaded something from their ftp site and used their brand name to sell something of which they got nothing". [1] They should just contact us. If we have a contract, we've protected our trademark and can thus be happy. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 18 Dec 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote: > > > I agree, you can't pay 7.99$ 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 > > to decide what is the proper price for those services. Anyway > > they won't prevent the redistribution of their ftp version Linux. > > Thus might might as well grab the opportunity for more revenues. > > 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 bucks to cheapbytes. It's less that it used to for the same product (the Deluxe version for $89 or whatever it was). Also, if you've already decided you want to get Red Hat Linux in the store, chances are you'll get the edition there. At least that's what I hope :) -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
Dominic Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree, you can't pay 7.99$ 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 cd's should bring some more revenues. It is up to RH > to decide what is the proper price for those services. 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 would be higher. Right now, the reason for the price of the boxed product is that just a certain fraction (I don't know how much) use the support. If everyone did, the price would be higher - it's like insurance that way. If you sell the same support agreement to someone already having downloaded it, chances are they need it. (and when reading the rest, I saw you already had mentioned some of that. Oh well :) -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
> "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 linuxtoday story is that red hat is still trying to figure out rpjday> what to do. That's not the case, but be aware that it takes a while to get things changed in a company our size; it's not like when I first came here, and the entire company could go out to lunch in four cars... :-) The upcoming holidays are not helping speed up the process, either... :-\ rpjday> i sincerely hope they can come up with a solution that doesn't rpjday> antagonize loyal users. That is a key issue for us... Ed -- Ed BaileyRed Hat, Inc. http://www.redhat.com/ ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
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 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. Clearly the real solution is for Red Hat to give a name to the "downloadable" version. At this point, "Red Hat Linux" doesn't indicate a boxed set or the download version; it's totally gray. Take a point from Turbolinux, where you have Turbolinux Server and Turbolinux Server, GPL edition. A simple branding fix is all that's needed here, not lawyers making a mess of things. I won't even go into the whole "Linux isn't Red Hat's trademark" thing. $.02, Bill Carlson -- Systems Programmer[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Anything is possible, Virtual Hospital http://www.vh.org/ | given time and money. University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics | Opinions are mine, not my employer's. | ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
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
Re: Cheapbytes
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 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. CU, Leonard. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
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, Leonard. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, rpjday wrote: > > 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 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 4.2. Not this time though. Too expensive. -- -- Nitebirdz -- XFS for Linux: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
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 red > > hat is going to have to accept. > > I said it before, and say it again: They shouldn't consider it a > nuisance. They should turn it into a profit center. Don't shoo the > caller away; offer them a support license for some sensible price, > and then provide decent support. a new posting at www.linuxtoday.com addresses the red hat trademark issue, just FYI. rday -- Robert P. J. Day Eno River Technologies, Chapel Hill NC Unix, Linux and Open Source corporate training ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
rpjday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 18 Dec 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote: > > > 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 $59(?), or just a couple of bucks to cheapbytes. > > red hat blew it here. > > rday In Canadian dollar that just 93$ and this does not include shipping and handling. With 2 or 3 releases per year this is getting expensive for me ... Cheers. -- Dominic Mitchell ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
On 18 Dec 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote: > 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 > to decide what is the proper price for those services. Anyway > they won't prevent the redistribution of their ftp version Linux. > Thus might might as well grab the opportunity for more revenues. 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 $59(?), or just a couple of bucks to cheapbytes. red hat blew it here. rday -- Robert P. J. Day Eno River Technologies, Chapel Hill NC Unix, Linux and Open Source corporate training ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
I agree, you can't pay 7.99$ 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 to decide what is the proper price for those services. Anyway they won't prevent the redistribution of their ftp version Linux. Thus might might as well grab the opportunity for more revenues. It would also be sensible to think that the fee for these services might be more "expensive" in the end than buying the official version of RH. Many could be buying RH to encourage RH to produce a quality version of Linux. Thus many buying official version of RH won't be using the 'technical services' of RH. However, those that bought their RH cd's from an unofficial distributor will only take service when they encounter a problem ... Cheers, Dominic. Dave Ihnat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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 it before, and say it again: They shouldn't consider it a > nuisance. They should turn it into a profit center. Don't shoo the > caller away; offer them a support license for some sensible price, > and then provide decent support. > > Cheers, -- Dominic Mitchell ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
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 it before, and say it again: They shouldn't consider it a nuisance. They should turn it into a profit center. Don't shoo the caller away; offer them a support license for some sensible price, and then provide decent support. Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > 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 :). while i am not a lawyer, i'd say 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, neither better nor worse than red hat linux 7.2 since it's really a bit-for-bit copy of it." frankly, the more i think about this, the more i believe this isn't really a trademark issue at all. red hat's major complaint seems to be that people are buying something called "red hat linux" from elsewhere, then calling red hat looking for support. i don't see how red hat can solve this problem by falling back on trademark law. it depends, i guess, on how one defines the entity called "red hat linux". if it's just the organization of bits on a CD, we already know that the licensing permits you to make unlimited copies of that software to your heart's content. if, however, as someone suggested here recently, the trademark "red hat linux" implies official support as well, then all one has to do is advertise that something else is "red hat linux, without official support," thereby not violating the trademark. 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. trademark law is not going to help them avoid inappropriate phone calls related to a product that is, let's face it, freely available everywhere. that's just a nuisance red hat is going to have to accept. rday -- Robert P. J. Day Eno River Technologies, Chapel Hill NC Unix, Linux and Open Source corporate training ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
> "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 that link. I think it's nice, too... :-) Ed -- Ed BaileyRed Hat, Inc. http://www.redhat.com/ ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
> "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 content. If people go to Cheapbytes they Leonard> will probably not be buying "Green Socks Linux 7.2" even though it Leonard> is a verbatim copy of the FTP version of Red Hat Linux 7.2. All I'm going to say is that I am aware that the appropriate people in the company are aware of the implications, and that this is a topic of discussion for those people. I am not Red Hat's legal counsel, so I'm not going to say more than that... Leonard> Maybe you could reply to Robert's statement? >> Frankly, i don't see how red 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. i fail to see >> how this would constitute a violation of red hat's trademark. Nope, I'm not going to reply -- that requires an interpretation of trademark law, and Red Hat doesn't pay me to do that... :-) Ed -- Ed BaileyRed Hat, Inc. http://www.redhat.com/ ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
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. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
> "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 any sites of particular interest? Could you provide Leonard> us with some URLs? Sure -- here's a few: http://www.ggmark.com/ (easy to read...) http://www.loundy.com/JMLS-Trademark.html (centers on trademark law and Internet domains, but many of the issues are still the same...) http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.html (The actual law; this'll put you to sleep *very* quickly!) :-) Ed -- Ed BaileyRed Hat, Inc. http://www.redhat.com/ ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
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? Bye, Leonard. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
Hi Edward, > 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 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 Cheapbytes they will probably not be buying "Green Socks Linux 7.2" even though it is a verbatim copy of the FTP version of Red Hat Linux 7.2. Maybe you could reply to Robert's statement? > Frankly, i don't see how red 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. i fail to see how this > would constitute a violation of red hat's trademark. Bye, Leonard. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
Hi Robert, > does this protection of the name extend to anyone who wants to, > say, write a book on red hat administration, or a course? Na. They just don't want you to sell copies of their CD's as being Red Hat Linux. > frankly, i don't see how red 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 logical, it's merely stating a fact. But I am not a lawyer and I don't think there is any jurisprudence regarding similar cases ((mentioning of a) trademark / GPL content). Also I can understand people/companies trying to avoid being sued, even hough they might be right. Bye, Leonard. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
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 google searches with the appropriate search terms, and read up on it... Ed -- Ed BaileyRed Hat, Inc. http://www.redhat.com/ ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
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 distribution? > > > > Hint: The name has to do with an article of clothing > > to keep your head warm. > > How can have I missed this information in their section Hot New > product? Now it is clear. This trademark enforcement is new. > This is why I was unaware ... > does this protection of the name extend to anyone who wants to, say, write a book on red hat administration, or a course? consider microsoft windows. apparently, every man and his dog seems to write a book on how to use the latest version of windows as soon as it's released. do all of these authors have to get permission to do this? that seems unreasonable. if i wanted to write a book on how to repair ford mustangs, would i first have to get permission from ford motor company? would they have the right to prevent me from writing such a book because "ford mustang" is a trademark? frankly, i don't see how red 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. i fail to see how this would constitute a violation of red hat's trademark. rday ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
"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 clothing > to keep your head warm. How can have I missed this information in their section Hot New product? Now it is clear. This trademark enforcement is new. This is why I was unaware ... Thanks for the info. -- Dominic Mitchell ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
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 with Macmillan; as time went on we > went our separate ways, but there was a period of time where they were > selling a copy of Red Hat Linux, and providing support themselves... == Didn't MacMillan, shortly thereafter develop a simialr relationship with Mandrake? May still exist for all I know Mike -- "It takes a minute to have a crush on someone, an hour to like someone and a day to love someone but it takes a lifetime to forget someone." --Plato ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
> "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 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 with Macmillan; as time went on we went our separate ways, but there was a period of time where they were selling a copy of Red Hat Linux, and providing support themselves... Ed -- Ed BaileyRed Hat, Inc. http://www.redhat.com/ ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: Cheapbytes
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) copies of the FTP version a little difficult, as Dominic experienced. Bye, Leonard. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: Cheapbytes
Hi David, > >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 was sold 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 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 clothing to keep your head warm. Bye, Leonard. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: Cheapbytes
-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 was sold by MacMillan, with explicit support disclaimers of course ... - -d - -- David Talkington http://www.spotnet.org PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/0xCA4C11AD.pgp -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6 iQA/AwUBPB5nSb9BpdPKTBGtEQILngCfbdNkZNes4D5UDRBmF612pcEW3JUAoIF7 hvlmzF1JuVw6tEcOiUGe8sVj =Fh17 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Cheapbytes
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 download from RedHat). You may have noticed how they do not have the new SuSE CDs. Back to what really matters, I do not remember having any trouble with the Cheapbytes RH CDs. Hope this helps. Best wishes, -Manuel A. Camacho Q. -Original Message- From: Dominic Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Redhat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 17 Dec 2001 16:13:16 -0500 Subject: 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 > Our Price: $7.99 > The media format of this product is that of a quality > replicated CD. > > Includes: > > Included with this CD-ROM set is the > following: > >x86 CPU Installation CD #1 Containing Version > 7.2 of XXX XXX >x86 CPU Installation CD #2 Containing Version > 7.2 of XXX XXX >Source CD #1 Containing Version 7.2 of XXX XXX >Source CD #2 Containing Version 7.2 of XXX XXX >Documentatin CD Containing Version 7.2 of XXX > XXX > > It looks to me that there is an error and that would be the > unofficial version of RH7.2. > > > Any Idea? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Dominic Mitchell > > > > ___ > Redhat-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: Cheapbytes
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. Shaun -Original Message- From: Dominic Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 4:13 PM To: Redhat Subject: 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 Our Price: $7.99 The media format of this product is that of a quality replicated CD. Includes: Included with this CD-ROM set is the following: x86 CPU Installation CD #1 Containing Version 7.2 of XXX XXX x86 CPU Installation CD #2 Containing Version 7.2 of XXX XXX Source CD #1 Containing Version 7.2 of XXX XXX Source CD #2 Containing Version 7.2 of XXX XXX Documentatin CD Containing Version 7.2 of XXX XXX It looks to me that there is an error and that would be the unofficial version of RH7.2. Any Idea? -- Dominic Mitchell ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
