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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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=01/12/18/1741238mode=nocomment
Bye,
Hi,
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/12/18/1741238mode=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
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/12/18/1741238mode=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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
Leonard == Leonard den Ottolander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LeonardHi 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
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 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
Leonard == Leonard den Ottolander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LeonardHi 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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
-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
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
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)
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
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
