Slashdot Log In
Red Hat & Centos On Name Usage
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Feb 14, 2005 09:45 AM
from the same-problem-as-a-long-time dept.
from the same-problem-as-a-long-time dept.
Mister Incognito writes "As you probably know, Centos is a free distribution compiled from sources of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. As requested, the distro has any references to Red Hat removed. But now Red Hat has decided that Centos must not even mention their name on the web site, or link to Red Hat, or even use metatags with its name on it. " Well, actually, what RHAT has asked for is that Centos comply with the their terms for using the name; Matthew Szulik has talked about this before, and should be noted that not all of the copyright stuff is "bad."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
From now on (Score:5, Funny)
Re:From now on (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Gosh... (Score:5, Insightful)
So...it is no much "stuff that matters".
Re:Gosh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally, if one does not protect their TM, they will lose their TM rights. That is all RH is doing. If they didn't at least try to protect their "Red Hat," then they would lose their rights to "Red Hat."
TM protection is generally a good thing for users!! TMs are partially desiged to protect consumer confusion. Wouldn't the world suck if RH was no longer a TM and all sorts of jackasses came out with Red Hat named distros.
Parent
Re:Gosh... (Score:5, Informative)
A trademark registration only stops others from using the mark as a trade mark (i.e.: the name they use to trade/sell their product under) so this doesn't cover stuff in the software (that's why Mozilla can't sue Microsoft over MSIE's HTTP UA product token for instance).
It is perfectly acceptable to even change the main trading name of Centos to "RedHat-based Centos" as this is descriptive; they would not be claiming when selling the product that it is RedHat, but just Redhat-based.
Parent
Makes Sense, kind of (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes Sense, kind of (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny part is, these rules ruthlessly enforced prevent CentOS or someone in a similar position from placing in their documentation the message "do not contact Red Hat for support."
Parent
Re:Makes Sense, kind of (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Whitebox (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyright != trademark (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely even the most casual reader of slashdot knows the difference between copyrights, trademarks and patents by now.
Who cares about the "meta tags" (actually meta elements) anyway? Search engines ignore them.
This story should fix the problem (Score:5, Funny)
RED HAT doesn't want CENTOS to link to them or mention their name because they are offering the same product as a free alternative.
This way google can index this so when people search they will find what they are looking for.
Now please copy and paste this post into every message board you frequent.
Thank you.
Muhahahah (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, and speaking of Red Hat [centos.org], I really do like Red Hat [centos.org] products and have to admit that Red Hat [centos.org] 5.2 was my first introduction to linux.
What does everyone else think we should do about the Red Hat [centos.org] trademark problem?
Addendum requested:
Parent
Really (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Really (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get off on some persecution trip... RH will "deal" with the others in time. They have a legitimate worry about product confusion, as really they are not selling an OS, but rather they are selling support for a spacific distro of a free OS. Confusion about CentOS and others made from RHAS source could hurt their real product, support.
Parent
No links? (Score:5, Interesting)
Eerily similar to Orbitz [slashdot.org] story covered today we see the following in their email message:
So people can't link to Red Hat?
Silly (Score:5, Funny)
Good luck enforcing this or convincing a judge about this. [redhat.com]
Not.Something's wrong here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice where the lawyer points out that Red Hat does not permit unauthorized linking to their website? Since when does using the Red Hat name along with a link to the Red Hat corporate website cause confusion about who you are? Eliminating every possibility of confusion and building brand identity is fine, but this is just stupid.
Come on, Red Hat. Just because you fancy yourselves competing with Sun, Microsoft and IBM doesn't mean you have to behave more obnoxiously than they do.
There is truly nothing like free advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Truthmark (Score:5, Interesting)
Our Position (Score:5, Informative)
First, I'll refer to the following summary (taken from this post [caosity.org]):
First let me say that I appreciate your feedback and your candor.
Your comments are well received.
However, the situation as it currently stands is that we do not have
legal counsel to advise us on what we can or cannot say on our web
site, nor do we have the financial resources to pay for such.
Furthermore, RedHat is required by law to protect their trademarks or
risk losing them, and they do have valid concerns about trademark
dilution.
RedHat has always been very generous with their code and open with
their processes and resources. I would point out that their primary
competition in the commercial RPM-based distribution space is not
nearly as generous or cooperative. While we may not agree with
everything they have said, we have an obligation to respect their
trademarks and their role in helping to create what we are and what
CentOS is.
The bottom line is this: The references to Red Hat and any other
marks they own MUST be removed from the web site and will remain so
indefinitely. We want to be clear about what CentOS is and what it
offers, but until we can secure legal counsel to help us balance our
interests with those of RedHat and other companies in this space, we
must err on the side of caution. That means if we're not sure we can
say it, we don't say it.
This course of action, while perhaps not the ideal solution from a
purely Libertarian point of view, is correct and in the best interests
of the project and the community at this time. We gain nothing by
hurting, diluting, or pissing off RedHat, nor would we want to. And
we certainly gain nothing turning this into a big legal fiasco.
Please understand that this is right and necessary at this point in
time, and support Donavan and the rest of the CentOS team in following
through on what we've asked of them.
Second, I want to reiterate that the RH legal team has been extremely patient and helpful. They pointed out a number of legitimate concerns, and we continue to work with them to make sure our web site is in compliance with their trademark usage policies.
Third, as we (and our projects) continue to grow and develop, we will be in need of legal counsel. If you are willing to provide pro bono legal advice to the Foundation [caosity.org] and its member projects, please contact us (legal ~a~t~ caosity ~d~o~t~ org).
And finally, I would like to point out that projects like CentOS [centos.org] could not exist without the continued support of RedHat, and we thank them for their continued efforts to find the right balance between running a for-profit business and helping the non-profit community.
Regards,
Michael Jennings
The cAos Foundation [caosity.org]
Here's the clencher (Score:5, Informative)
The
Can you imagine the SHITFIT that Coca-Cola would have if there was a competing product called "Co-sola - Coca-Cola derived soda"??? I mean, artificial diamond production would quintuple overnight, and the Men's Wearhouse would have a run on all the suits needed to cover all the lawyers' bodies involved...
RedHat is being very, very good about this. And it's a good thing, too - RedHat would lose all future business from me (and very nearly did with their RHL -> Fedora switcharoo) if they did anything to actually stop CentOS or WhiteBox.
But, the name is theirs, and they have every right and responsibiltiy to protect it as legally required.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
And it should be noted that this issue seems more about trademark and contract law, and less about copyright...
Parent
Re:I Don't Understand The Need For Centos (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I Don't Understand The Need For Centos (Score:5, Informative)
Redhat is often required due to the demands of certain commercial scientific software.
We need distros like Centos and Tao because we need a stable OS that has a multi-year lifespan. As others mentioned -- an every-6-months upgrade for Fedora Linux is not cool when you have production systems doing heavy science 24/7.
If Redhat had a sane pricing model for scientific computing I'd gladly pay for it. As it stands though their cheapest WS line is for low end X86 systems. If you have a cluster of opterons or boxes with more than 4GB RAM (very common) you are forced to go with the enterprise line which costs thousands of dollars per machine each and every year. This is not feasable even for enterprise customers (unless they have a site license with Redhat).
This is why over the past year or two I've started deploying clusters based on Suse and Centos.
my $.02
Parent
NOT TRUE (Score:5, Informative)
someone else wanted to be a co-developer and registered http://www.whiteboxlinux.net/ [whiteboxlinux.net] on their own initiative.
That second person who invited themselves to the party was rebuffed by Morris, who did not want to share control, and has moved to CentOS He was NOT the "main developer".
The original (one-person-run) whiteboxlinux show continues unchanged.
Parent