TradeMarked Name --redhat-config-

Post by David Farning
I have been working for the past several weeks on a visual gui
front end for yum. I am considering bringing that knowledge with me to
work on the fedora project.
But, Frankly, I am concerned about contributing to a program
with a trademarked name. I am interested in giving back to the
entiregnu/linux community not just the redhat community.
If someone likes my product, I would like them to be able to
freely use my work irregardless of their distro/flavor.
With this in mind what are your suggestions?
a. Go ahead and work on redhat-config-*.
b. Seek renaming of redhat-config-* to something vendor neutral.
c. Put my work in an up stream project and let it trickle down.

David,
I have similar worries. I've been encouraged to possibly look at using
the rhpl package (red hat python library) for functions in yum and the
rhpl functions/classes are really quite nice, but I'm a little hazy on
requiring them for yum b/c I'd like yum to be useful on other platforms
than just rhel/flc/rhl.

I'd love to hear suggestions on this problem, especially from the red
hat folks. I know at least one person at red hat does understand my
concerns.

-sv

Alan Cox

2003-11-08 02:41:18 UTC

Post by David Farning
If someone likes my product, I would like them to be able to
freely use my work irregardless of their distro/flavor.
With this in mind what are your suggestions?
a. Go ahead and work on redhat-config-*.
b. Seek renaming of redhat-config-* to something vendor neutral.
c. Put my work in an up stream project and let it trickle down.

Do you worry about contributing to gnu-cc ?

I do understand the point you are trying to make but its GPL code and so
you can either rename it or not worry about it (Red Hat ships gnu-cc, nothing
stops other folks shipping redhat-config-blah really as I understand it).

You'd want different artwork of course.

seth vidal

2003-11-08 06:56:44 UTC

Post by Alan Cox
Do you worry about contributing to gnu-cc ?
I do understand the point you are trying to make but its GPL code and so
you can either rename it or not worry about it (Red Hat ships gnu-cc, nothing
stops other folks shipping redhat-config-blah really as I understand it).

Well I know this sounds silly, but, in the case of yum people use it on
non-redhat platforms. I'd actually feel bad telling them 'yah you need
this red hat specific library, named rhpl' in order to use it.

putting the name of a commercial vendor in the library name is kinda
'blah' anyway.

(this, of course coming from the guy who wrote yellowdog updater,
modified, so I completely understand the hypocrisy) :)
but to be honest most people miss the yellowdog part entirely, for some
reason.

-sv

Hugo Cisneiros

2003-11-08 12:30:07 UTC

Well I know this sounds silly, but, in the case of yum people use it on
non-redhat platforms. I'd actually feel bad telling them 'yah you need
this red hat specific library, named rhpl' in order to use it.
putting the name of a commercial vendor in the library name is kinda
'blah' anyway.
(this, of course coming from the guy who wrote yellowdog updater,
modified, so I completely understand the hypocrisy) :)
but to be honest most people miss the yellowdog part entirely, for some
reason.

I don't think this point is silly, naming something is an important
issue ;) There are lots of Linux distributions, imagine that every
distribution will begin to write programs and name them
distro-program... Not good.

Mainly because everyone will try to create their versions of the program
(they are GPL'ed for example, so it's easy), and in some time, there
will be many programs that do the same thing, but with different names.

Or worse, the distributions will not use the applications because
they're from specific vendors... This sucks. Linux is a community,
creating the programs and giving them generic names will attract every
distribution to take the program, analyze it, do some modifications if
needed (good feedback to the author) and implement in their
distribution. This is the way to go IMHO.

Post by seth vidal
-sv

[]'s
Hugo

nathan r. hruby

2003-11-08 15:59:43 UTC

Post by seth vidal
(this, of course coming from the guy who wrote yellowdog updater,
modified, so I completely understand the hypocrisy) :)
but to be honest most people miss the yellowdog part entirely, for some
reason.

yup!

-n

--
-------------------------------------------
nathan hruby <***@uga.edu>
uga enterprise information technology services
production systems support
metaphysically wrinkle-free
-------------------------------------------

Behdad Esfahbod

2003-11-09 11:28:33 UTC

yup!

yellowdog updater, petrified?

-n

seth vidal

2003-11-09 18:22:52 UTC

Post by Behdad Esfahbod

yup!

yellowdog updater, petrified?

YUP was the Yellowdog UPdater.
so maybe yum should be yupm but considering it shares maybe 2 functions
with yup it doesn't seem all that important.
To be completely honest, yum was selected as a name b/c it was:
1. short
2. not already taken

:)

-sv

Jared Smith

2003-11-10 19:23:09 UTC

Post by seth vidal
YUP was the Yellowdog UPdater.
so maybe yum should be yupm but considering it shares maybe 2 functions
with yup it doesn't seem all that important.
1. short
2. not already taken

Hmmmn... I just had a thought... why not rename it to "rum", as in
Redhat Updater, iMproved! (OK, this borders on trolling, so I'll stop.)

Jared

Behdad Esfahbod

2003-11-11 02:59:47 UTC

Post by Jared Smith

Post by seth vidal
YUP was the Yellowdog UPdater.
so maybe yum should be yupm but considering it shares maybe 2 functions
with yup it doesn't seem all that important.
1. short
2. not already taken

Hmmmn... I just had a thought... why not rename it to "rum", as in
Redhat Updater, iMproved! (OK, this borders on trolling, so I'll stop.)
Jared

While yum is a short and nice name, renaming it to something like
system-package-* (or making a symlink?) helps so that the new
user/admin simply types syste-TAB and finds what he's looking
for.

seth vidal

2003-11-11 03:07:34 UTC

Post by Behdad Esfahbod
While yum is a short and nice name, renaming it to something like
system-package-* (or making a symlink?) helps so that the new
user/admin simply types syste-TAB and finds what he's looking
for.

I'd have no problem with a symlink for the command executable but I
think yum is such a cute name :)

-sv

Alan Cox

2003-11-08 17:50:47 UTC

Post by seth vidal
Well I know this sounds silly, but, in the case of yum people use it on
non-redhat platforms. I'd actually feel bad telling them 'yah you need
this red hat specific library, named rhpl' in order to use it.

But you don't feel the same about "You need the gnu C library" or
"gnu C compiler" or "Berkeley Yacc" or "Apache webserver" or or that
matter "Linux"...

Its only a problem if the library you really need makes it impossible to
port the app over surely ?

Post by seth vidal
putting the name of a commercial vendor in the library name is kinda
'blah' anyway.

IMHO it is the same in all cases. It's about credit. Whether you'd keep
the command line redhat-config-foo on a non RH system is a different
matter altogether.

Alan

seth vidal

2003-11-08 22:15:46 UTC

Post by Alan Cox
IMHO it is the same in all cases. It's about credit. Whether you'd keep
the command line redhat-config-foo on a non RH system is a different
matter altogether.

Right, but I'm not doing advertising for a corporation by having apache,
or gnu or berkeley in the reqs.

I don't wear clothing with brand labels present, for a reason.

-sv

seth vidal

2003-11-08 22:21:35 UTC

Post by Alan Cox
IMHO it is the same in all cases. It's about credit. Whether you'd keep
the command line redhat-config-foo on a non RH system is a different
matter altogether.

Right, but I'm not doing advertising for a corporation by having apache,
or gnu or berkeley in the reqs.
I don't wear clothing with brand labels present, for a reason.

I'd like to add one more thing, it's not the end of the world to use
rhpl, but I do have some concerns over 1. where and how rhpl is
developed and 2. it's api stability.

-sv

Matthew T. O'Connor

2003-11-08 23:31:27 UTC

Post by Alan Cox
IMHO it is the same in all cases. It's about credit. Whether you'd keep
the command line redhat-config-foo on a non RH system is a different
matter altogether.

Right, but I'm not doing advertising for a corporation by having apache,
or gnu or berkeley in the reqs.
I don't wear clothing with brand labels present, for a reason.

Lots of people / distros use RPM which is an advertisement for Redhat.

Dan Burcaw

2003-11-09 01:16:08 UTC

Post by Matthew T. O'Connor
Lots of people / distros use RPM which is an advertisement for Redhat.

But RPM has been an acronym for "RPM Package Manager" for some time
now... ;-)

Alan Cox

2003-11-09 00:26:38 UTC

Post by Alan Cox
IMHO it is the same in all cases. It's about credit. Whether you'd keep
the command line redhat-config-foo on a non RH system is a different
matter altogether.

Right, but I'm not doing advertising for a corporation by having apache,
or gnu or berkeley in the reqs.

Actually Apache is a corporation. MySQL is a business, UC Berkeley pretty
much is, sendmail is.

Alan

seth vidal

2003-11-09 19:47:54 UTC

Post by Alan Cox

Post by Alan Cox
IMHO it is the same in all cases. It's about credit. Whether you'd keep
the command line redhat-config-foo on a non RH system is a different
matter altogether.

Right, but I'm not doing advertising for a corporation by having apache,
or gnu or berkeley in the reqs.

Actually Apache is a corporation. MySQL is a business, UC Berkeley pretty
much is, sendmail is.

UC Berkeley is a school, just like duke - non-profit organizations,
Apache is Apache Software Foundation, I believe, and that's also a
non-profit.

Mysql and sendmail are business, You're entirely correct, but sendmail
was a program before it was a company-oriented one, iirc. and mysql has
already had trademark trouble.

But neither of those are companies that directly compete with red hat in
the distro field, I really would be curious about novell-config-foo
being included in red hat enterprise linux, or even in fedora core.

-sv

Alan Cox

2003-11-09 20:32:24 UTC

Post by seth vidal
UC Berkeley is a school, just like duke - non-profit organizations,
Apache is Apache Software Foundation, I believe, and that's also a
non-profit.

Apache Software foundation is a corporation. At least learn what a
corporation is -before- you start moaning about it

seth vidal

2003-11-09 20:33:29 UTC

Post by Alan Cox

Post by seth vidal
UC Berkeley is a school, just like duke - non-profit organizations,
Apache is Apache Software Foundation, I believe, and that's also a
non-profit.

Apache Software foundation is a corporation. At least learn what a
corporation is -before- you start moaning about it

odd - maybe their webpage is wrong.

The Apache Software Foundation is a private operating foundation that is
registered as a non-profit, charitable organization under Section
501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. This means that, for
individuals within the U.S., donations to the ASF should be
tax-deductible. We are not accountants, so this cannot be trusted as
financial advice of any kind, but hopefully this description will be
useful to those who advise you in these matters.

or should I be more clear.
NOT-for-profit corporations.

-sv

Paul Gear

2003-11-09 07:47:18 UTC

Post by Alan Cox
...

Post by seth vidal
putting the name of a commercial vendor in the library name is
kinda 'blah' anyway.

IMHO it is the same in all cases. It's about credit. Whether you'd
keep the command line redhat-config-foo on a non RH system is a
different matter altogether.

With all due respect (i've never disagreed with a Linux luminary before
;-), there's something else here other than credit: Red Hat's trademark
guidelines: http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/.
From my reading of them, it is possible that it is a trademark
violation for the Fedora Project to make use of the name Red Hat (or
anything similar enough to be confusing), anywhere in its distribution.

In .../guidelines/page4.html it states:
You may not use "Red Hat" or any confusingly similar mark as
a trademark for your product, or use "Red Hat" in any other
manner that might cause confusion in the marketplace, including
in advertising, on auction sites, or on software or hardware.

Additionally, there appears to be no relevant exception made for Fedora
in .../guidelines/page9.html.

Now, the overall name of the product seems to be the main point of the
trademark pages, but it would seem incongruent to me (and i suspect to
lawyer-types as well - although i'm not one) that the guidelines for the
naming of a subset of the product would be any different to the overall
product.

Thus it would seem to me that one or more of the following are required:

1. Red Hat change their trademark policy to either:
a) make it clear that the trademark policy applies only to the overall
distribution, not specific products, and/or
b) make a specific trademark policy exception for Fedora (and any other
distribution based upon it).

2. Fedora rename or remove redhat-* packages to ensure that anyone
redistributing Fedora would not be in grey areas of the Red Hat
trademark guidelines.

3. Depending on the outcome of 1. above, Red Hat take another approach
to their RPM package naming so as not to put any unnecessary blocks in
the way of the Fedora project.

Paul

P.S. Despite what RPM stands for, it is still a trademark of Red Hat
(.../guidelines/page2.html) and could conceivably come under similar
trademark guidelines in the future (although i'm not sure what legal
difference registered vs. unregistered makes).

Alan Cox

2003-11-09 11:43:01 UTC

Post by Paul Gear
With all due respect (i've never disagreed with a Linux luminary before
;-), there's something else here other than credit: Red Hat's trademark
guidelines: http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/

I don't believe it is an issue. I've forwarded your mail to the right people
for comment on whether this needs clarifying however.

David Farning

2003-11-08 12:52:06 UTC

I wonder what state GUN/Linux would be in if it was redhat-cc ;)

Early on in my thinking, I looked at putting a paralle project called
gupta (Grand Unified Packaging Tool) at sorceforge . Just pull off the
trademarks and repackage.

But, wouldn't that that just contribute to FUD. Same product two names,
two locations, two appearances.

I be honest--I think that the fedora/redhat effort can be a win-win for
everyone involved. I'm just concerned that if the redhat side of the
house starts to push it's fedora developers too hard, (the community
ones at least) they'll jump ship. Then we will have a lose-lose.

Dave Farning

Mike A. Harris

2003-11-09 13:18:22 UTC

Post by David Farning

I wonder what state GUN/Linux would be in if it was redhat-cc ;)
Early on in my thinking, I looked at putting a paralle project called
gupta (Grand Unified Packaging Tool) at sorceforge . Just pull off the
trademarks and repackage.
But, wouldn't that that just contribute to FUD. Same product two names,
two locations, two appearances.
I be honest--I think that the fedora/redhat effort can be a win-win for
everyone involved. I'm just concerned that if the redhat side of the
house starts to push it's fedora developers too hard, (the community
ones at least) they'll jump ship. Then we will have a lose-lose.

"Ximian" of "Ximian Evolution" is also a trademark, as is "Linux"
itself. Are people going to jump ship and use the GNU Hurd
kernel now because these are trademarked?

Please people, with all due respect... get a life. ;o)

Write some code, and contribute it. Improve the morass of open
source code out there, and make all of our lives better.

--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat

Lance Davis

2003-11-09 13:38:54 UTC

Post by David Farning

I wonder what state GUN/Linux would be in if it was redhat-cc ;)
Early on in my thinking, I looked at putting a paralle project called
gupta (Grand Unified Packaging Tool) at sorceforge . Just pull off the
trademarks and repackage.
But, wouldn't that that just contribute to FUD. Same product two names,
two locations, two appearances.
I be honest--I think that the fedora/redhat effort can be a win-win for
everyone involved. I'm just concerned that if the redhat side of the
house starts to push it's fedora developers too hard, (the community
ones at least) they'll jump ship. Then we will have a lose-lose.

"Ximian" of "Ximian Evolution" is also a trademark, as is "Linux"
itself. Are people going to jump ship and use the GNU Hurd
kernel now because these are trademarked?
Please people, with all due respect... get a life. ;o)
Write some code, and contribute it. Improve the morass of open
source code out there, and make all of our lives better.

That really sums up redhats attitude does it ??

None of the other projects / companies mentioned , including XFree86 ,
Apache etc, use trademarks to restrict the distribution of GPL software
like Redhat does.

Who is to say that in the next release we may be told to rename all of the
redhat- rpms as well as redhat-artwork and anaconda-images, because they
use redhats trademark - it is redhat inc that have chosen the rules and
changed the goalposts at each release of Redhat(TM) Linux(TM).

And even though neither we nor our lawyers may agree with redhats
interpretation of trademark law we do not have deep enough pockets to
argue.

It is right that the questions are asked now, and hopefully anmswers
given. The use of redhat- for an rpm in theory contravenes redhats published tradmark guidelines, and
permission is not given anywhere for its use.

Surely if redhat does allow this use then it may be weakening its
trademark position ....

And what about all of those people calling up redhat inc for support on
the redhat- rpms when they havent paid for it because they got it from a
back street cd vendor ??

What if I called my package redhat-config-widgit because it configures a
widgit to work with redhat/fedora/other rpm based distro ???

So - get yourself a life ... and ask your lawyers to give the answers.

Lance

--
uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.

Behdad Esfahbod

2003-11-09 13:51:52 UTC

Post by Lance Davis
That really sums up redhats attitude does it ??
None of the other projects / companies mentioned , including XFree86 ,
Apache etc, use trademarks to restrict the distribution of GPL software
like Redhat does.

Quoting GPL FAQ:

The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from
you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of
that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the
work on any more restrictive basis.

So isn't Red Hat already violating that by their restrictions on
using their trademark and releasing software with the trademark
in it as GPL?

Post by Lance Davis
Who is to say that in the next release we may be told to rename all of the
redhat- rpms as well as redhat-artwork and anaconda-images, because they
use redhats trademark - it is redhat inc that have chosen the rules and
changed the goalposts at each release of Redhat(TM) Linux(TM).

GPL should protect you perhaps.

Post by Lance Davis
And even though neither we nor our lawyers may agree with redhats
interpretation of trademark law we do not have deep enough pockets to
argue.
It is right that the questions are asked now, and hopefully anmswers
given. The use of redhat- for an rpm in theory contravenes redhats published tradmark guidelines, and
permission is not given anywhere for its use.
Surely if redhat does allow this use then it may be weakening its
trademark position ....
And what about all of those people calling up redhat inc for support on
the redhat- rpms when they havent paid for it because they got it from a
back street cd vendor ??
What if I called my package redhat-config-widgit because it configures a
widgit to work with redhat/fedora/other rpm based distro ???
So - get yourself a life ... and ask your lawyers to give the answers.
Lance

Mike A. Harris

2003-11-09 14:04:34 UTC

Post by Behdad Esfahbod
So isn't Red Hat already violating that by their restrictions on
using their trademark and releasing software with the trademark
in it as GPL?

No. The GPL does not have any clause concerning trademarks.

--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat

Lance Davis

2003-11-09 14:08:41 UTC

Post by Behdad Esfahbod
So isn't Red Hat already violating that by their restrictions on
using their trademark and releasing software with the trademark
in it as GPL?

No. The GPL does not have any clause concerning trademarks.

'any more restrictive basis' would IMHO and IANAL include the use of
trademarks.

Lance

--
uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.

Mike A. Harris

2003-11-09 14:28:27 UTC

Post by Behdad Esfahbod
So isn't Red Hat already violating that by their restrictions on
using their trademark and releasing software with the trademark
in it as GPL?

No. The GPL does not have any clause concerning trademarks.

'any more restrictive basis' would IMHO and IANAL include the use of
trademarks.

There is no restriction on the use, copying, modification,
redistribution of the code, which is what the GPL covers.
Since these restrictions do not exist, there is no conflict with
the GPL. Feel free to point out any case law which contradicts
this however, I'd definitely be interested in reading up on any
legal precedents.

--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat

Lance Davis

2003-11-09 19:52:54 UTC

Post by Behdad Esfahbod
So isn't Red Hat already violating that by their restrictions on
using their trademark and releasing software with the trademark
in it as GPL?

No. The GPL does not have any clause concerning trademarks.

'any more restrictive basis' would IMHO and IANAL include the use of
trademarks.

There is no restriction on the use,

of course there is a restriction on the use ......

(especially in the case of Enterprise Linux if you are a customer ;)

Post by Mike A. Harris
copying, modification, redistribution

errmm and of the redistribution ...

Lance

--
uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.

Mike A. Harris

2003-11-09 20:05:49 UTC

Post by Lance Davis
'any more restrictive basis' would IMHO and IANAL include the use of
trademarks.

There is no restriction on the use,

of course there is a restriction on the use ......
(especially in the case of Enterprise Linux if you are a customer ;)

Post by Mike A. Harris
copying, modification, redistribution

errmm and of the redistribution ...

Sorry, but you seem dead set on just arguing for the sake of
arguing, and I've got more productive things to do with my time
than waste it on this list with petty threads like this.

In fact, the majority of traffic on this list is useless garbage
unrelated to actual real development issues, and is thus not
really useful to me.

Since this forum isn't moderated and has no controls on keeping
it focused on any form of actual development topic, I've decided
to unsubscribe from the list in hopes in a month or so it will
have turned into something more useful to actual developmental
issues, and not just idle chit chat, mp3/dvd/ntfs whining and
other legal issues including patents, copyrights, trademarks,
etc. There's just too much volume and too little useful content
for the list to be useful to me.

If anyone has bugs to report about X et al. or feature requests,
file them in bugzilla. For email related development or tech
support discussion join xfree86-***@redhat.com and post there.

I'll be in IRC on #fedora-devel if anyone needs to discuss
anything actually technical or remotely related to development
or creativity at all in the meantime.

Goodbye all.

--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat

Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha

2003-11-09 15:27:32 UTC

Post by Behdad Esfahbod
So isn't Red Hat already violating that by their restrictions on
using their trademark and releasing software with the trademark
in it as GPL?

No. The GPL does not have any clause concerning trademarks.

'any more restrictive basis' would IMHO and IANAL include the use of
trademarks.

Copyright law is independent of trademark law. The GPL is a distribution
licence dependent on copyright law.

It's one thing to take all GPL packages on RedHat Linux and sell it as
Super Linux for $2000, it's another to name a product Best RedHat, whether
based on RedHat software or some other software.

Linux is also a registered trademark, not to be used at free. Linus, the
trademark owner, allows a lot of uses by 3rd parties, but reserves for
himself the right to prosecute malicious uses, or just damaging uses.

You can take all the Linux kernel source, rename it to Optimux or something,
and sell it if following the GPL.

But you can't take a BSD kernel and sell it as Linux.

The same is, I suppose, for RedHat, but in your case you're not selling
a product but creating a package. It, in itself is just a product, but it
isn't a damaging to RedHat's trademark as a new software distribution.

And it would be damaging, not because RedHat feels like your damaging it, but
because trademark law states that it must be actively prosecuted, or it may
be lost, contrary to copyright.

I'll give you two advices:

1. If you really want to use that name for your software, contact Red Hat's
legal department as Mike Harris has suggested.

2. Change the name. redhat-config-* is a recent name, used by Red Hat to name
the packages it made for configuration of services distributed within its
RedHat Linux product. widget-config is as good as name as any.

Regards,
Luciano Rocha

PS: AINAL

Bill Anderson

2003-11-12 13:43:45 UTC

Post by Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha
PS: AINAL

Am I Not A Lawyer? ;^)

--
Bill Anderson
RHCE #807302597505773
***@noreboots.com

Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha

2003-11-13 10:45:26 UTC

Post by Bill Anderson

Post by Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha
PS: AINAL

Am I Not A Lawyer? ;^)

Well, am I? :)

Regards,
Luciano Rocha

Behdad Esfahbod

2003-11-09 14:27:15 UTC

Post by Behdad Esfahbod
So isn't Red Hat already violating that by their restrictions on
using their trademark and releasing software with the trademark
in it as GPL?

No. The GPL does not have any clause concerning trademarks.

Not the trademark itself, the fact that Red Hat puts constraints
on using their trademark that happens to be in the name of the
software released under GPL.

Alexandre Oliva

2003-11-09 19:06:02 UTC

Post by Behdad Esfahbod

So isn't Red Hat already violating that by their restrictions on
using their trademark and releasing software with the trademark
in it as GPL?

redhat is not a trademark. Red Hat is, and so are the logos. Those,
that Red Hat needs to protect, are in separate packages, whose
licenses are not the GNU GPL. My understanding is that those that
*are* GPLed can't be encumbered with trademark, just like they can't
be encumbered by patents. But then, IANAL, so my understanding may be
off.

Post by Behdad Esfahbod
GPL should protect you perhaps.

I'm convinced it does, for packages that are indeed released under the
GNU GPL. This is not the case of fedora-logos or anaconda-images,
since their license is not the GNU GPL. But then again, IANAL.

--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer

seth vidal

2003-11-09 19:10:39 UTC

Post by Alexandre Oliva
redhat is not a trademark. Red Hat is, and so are the logos. Those,
that Red Hat needs to protect, are in separate packages, whose
licenses are not the GNU GPL. My understanding is that those that
*are* GPLed can't be encumbered with trademark, just like they can't
be encumbered by patents. But then, IANAL, so my understanding may be
off.

Post by Behdad Esfahbod
GPL should protect you perhaps.

I'm convinced it does, for packages that are indeed released under the
GNU GPL. This is not the case of fedora-logos or anaconda-images,
since their license is not the GNU GPL. But then again, IANAL.

Does the GPL protect you?
http://www.open-mag.com/features/Vol_24/GPL/gpl.htm

not sure it does. Do any of the people who might want to help out want
have the money to find out if it protects you? I don't.

But let's drop this as a trademark issue and bring up a more solid
point, if there are new tools written by !red hat people why would this
programs be named redhat-config-something.

For that matter why fedora-config-something as 'fedora' JUST fedora is a
TM of red hat.

config-something seems fine to me, but somebrand-config-something seems
unnecessary.

-sv

Alexandre Oliva

2003-11-10 17:35:52 UTC

Post by Alexandre Oliva
I'm convinced it does, for packages that are indeed released under the
GNU GPL. This is not the case of fedora-logos or anaconda-images,
since their license is not the GNU GPL. But then again, IANAL.

Does the GPL protect you?
not sure it does.

I don't believe this is any different from patents. If you release
GPLed code that builds upon patents you own, you cannot sue anyone for
patent violation because, by the GPL, you cannot impose any further
restrictions on the distribution of the software. I don't see that
with trademarks this would be any different.

Hmm... On second thought, maybe this limitation doesn't apply to the
copyright holder, only to redistributors? At this point, I have to
claim again that IANAL and leave it at that :-)

Mike A. Harris

2003-11-09 14:03:28 UTC

Post by Mike A. Harris
"Ximian" of "Ximian Evolution" is also a trademark, as is "Linux"
itself. Are people going to jump ship and use the GNU Hurd
kernel now because these are trademarked?
Please people, with all due respect... get a life. ;o)
Write some code, and contribute it. Improve the morass of open
source code out there, and make all of our lives better.

That really sums up redhats attitude does it ??

Attitude? Um, no. That sums up my personal opinion. Perhaps I
shouldn't be feeding the trolls on a Sunday. <sigh>

Post by Lance Davis
None of the other projects / companies mentioned , including
XFree86 , Apache etc, use trademarks to restrict the
distribution of GPL software like Redhat does.

We're not using trademarks to restrict the distribution of GPL
software, so you are very wrong there.

Post by Lance Davis
Who is to say that in the next release we may be told to rename
all of the redhat- rpms as well as redhat-artwork and
anaconda-images, because they use redhats trademark - it is
redhat inc that have chosen the rules and changed the goalposts
at each release of Redhat(TM) Linux(TM).

/me rolls eyes

Post by Lance Davis
It is right that the questions are asked now, and hopefully
anmswers given. The use of redhat- for an rpm in theory
contravenes redhats published tradmark guidelines, and
permission is not given anywhere for its use.

The Red Hat legal department has clarified this issue in the past
when people asked, and they've been re-contacted to <sigh> once
again clarify the issue.

Post by Lance Davis
Surely if redhat does allow this use then it may be weakening
its trademark position ....

You may wish to consult an IP attourney before making such
assumptions, but feel free to speculate by all means.

Post by Lance Davis
And what about all of those people calling up redhat inc for
support on the redhat- rpms when they havent paid for it because
they got it from a back street cd vendor ??

They are more than happy to participate in the Fedora project
also, and contribute patches and improvements to the code, as it
is open source and GPL licensed. The more people who are
interested in doing so, the merrier.

Post by Lance Davis
What if I called my package redhat-config-widgit because it
configures a widgit to work with redhat/fedora/other rpm based
distro ???

IANAL, so I don't have an answer for that one.

Post by Lance Davis
So - get yourself a life ... and ask your lawyers to give the
answers.

Feel free to call Red Hat legal on the phone and have it
clarified directly if you wish. I'm not particularly interested
in this pointless flamewar however.

Alas, perhaps someone will invoke Godwin's and the S/N ratio will
improve on the list. Fingers crossed. Any takers?

--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat

Lance Davis

2003-11-09 14:14:33 UTC

Post by Lance Davis
That really sums up redhats attitude does it ??

Attitude? Um, no. That sums up my personal opinion. Perhaps I
shouldn't be feeding the trolls on a Sunday. <sigh>

or even trolling yourself. ..

Post by Lance Davis
None of the other projects / companies mentioned , including
XFree86 , Apache etc, use trademarks to restrict the
distribution of GPL software like Redhat does.

We're not using trademarks to restrict the distribution of GPL
software, so you are very wrong there.

'released under the GPL as long as you conform to our trademark
requirements' seems clear cut to me.

http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/page6.html is
even clearer.

Post by Lance Davis
Who is to say that in the next release we may be told to rename
all of the redhat- rpms as well as redhat-artwork and
anaconda-images, because they use redhats trademark - it is
redhat inc that have chosen the rules and changed the goalposts
at each release of Redhat(TM) Linux(TM).

/me rolls eyes

attitude again ???

The Red Hat legal department has clarified this issue in the past
when people asked, and they've been re-contacted to <sigh> once
again clarify the issue.

I dont believe they have clarified this actual issue, which is why AC said
he would refer it to them.

Post by Lance Davis
Surely if redhat does allow this use then it may be weakening
its trademark position ....

You may wish to consult an IP attourney before making such
assumptions, but feel free to speculate by all means.

I already have - I am just going by missives from redhat ...

Post by Lance Davis
What if I called my package redhat-config-widgit because it
configures a widgit to work with redhat/fedora/other rpm based
distro ???

IANAL, so I don't have an answer for that one.
... ask your lawyers to give the

Post by Lance Davis
answers.

Lance

--
uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.

Behdad Esfahbod

2003-11-09 14:32:20 UTC

Post by Lance Davis
What if I called my package redhat-config-widgit because it
configures a widgit to work with redhat/fedora/other rpm based
distro ???

IANAL, so I don't have an answer for that one.

Post by Lance Davis
So - get yourself a life ... and ask your lawyers to give the
answers.

Feel free to call Red Hat legal on the phone and have it
clarified directly if you wish. I'm not particularly interested
in this pointless flamewar however.

I don't call it flamewar still. I'm a bit concerned about the
issue, as I'm thinking about something I'm working on
redhat-config-laptop, just to go with the other stuff...

Post by Mike A. Harris
Alas, perhaps someone will invoke Godwin's and the S/N ratio will
improve on the list. Fingers crossed. Any takers?

Counting ships...zzz...

behdad

Alan Cox

2003-11-09 15:05:28 UTC

Post by Mike A. Harris
Write some code, and contribute it. Improve the morass of open
source code out there, and make all of our lives better.

That really sums up redhats attitude does it ??

Yes. Those two lines really catch what Fedora is all about. Perhaps you
should go troll somewhere else ?

seth vidal

2003-11-09 14:27:07 UTC

Post by Mike A. Harris
"Ximian" of "Ximian Evolution" is also a trademark, as is "Linux"
itself. Are people going to jump ship and use the GNU Hurd
kernel now because these are trademarked?

curiously enough it is not called ximian evolution in the menus,
although it used to be.

Post by Mike A. Harris
Please people, with all due respect... get a life. ;o)
Write some code, and contribute it. Improve the morass of open
source code out there, and make all of our lives better.

Ok,
I have written some code, I have made some people's lives better, I
think. So let me ask a few questions:
- If I were to use the Novell-Python-Libraries that were under a
non-renaming but open license and require them for yum would your
marketing and license people like that advertisement for your
competitors?
- What about naming yum redhat-config-packages-tui - could I do that?
OR would I have lawyers up my butt in 30 minutes?

I think some clarification would be good and I also think that there is
no need for telling people to get a life. They're confused about this
issue as I am, and b/c they are not lawyers we'd love to have some
clarification. B/c of the trademark issue people are afraid of running
afoul of red hat's lawyers, I know I am.

-sv

Dennis Gilmore

2003-11-09 14:47:58 UTC

Post by seth vidal
Ok,
I have written some code, I have made some people's lives better, I
- If I were to use the Novell-Python-Libraries that were under a
non-renaming but open license and require them for yum would your
marketing and license people like that advertisement for your
competitors?
- What about naming yum redhat-config-packages-tui - could I do that?
OR would I have lawyers up my butt in 30 minutes?

Thank you for your work Seth

why not just call it just call it linux-config-packages or something like
that. something i think that would be good for newbies is a wrapper for all
the different config tools like kcontrol is for the different kde control
modules you can run the control center or you can run each tool seperatly.

Dennis

seth vidal

2003-11-09 14:53:11 UTC

Post by Dennis Gilmore
Thank you for your work Seth
why not just call it just call it linux-config-packages or something like
that. something i think that would be good for newbies is a wrapper for all
the different config tools like kcontrol is for the different kde control
modules you can run the control center or you can run each tool seperatly.

yum runs on opendarwin and should run just fine on freebsd + openpkg
rpm or solaris + openpkg rpm.

so, it's not just a linux-config-packages.

But your suggestion is not a bad one.

-sv

Mike A. Harris

2003-11-09 13:10:36 UTC