Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses

Red Hat Trademark Issue Explained 150

Posted by Hemos from the this-makes-much-more-sense dept.
There's been a significant amount of confusion in the past couple days over the issue of whether Red Hat was requiring everyone who was re-selling the distro to no longer mention Red Hat anywhere. That, thankfully, is not the case. Click below to get the full skinny on what you can - and can't - do with the Red Hat name.
Thanks to Melissa London at Red Hat for sending this information over. The information in question is from Bob Young, CEO of Red Hat.

Re: Amazon's concerns over fake Red Hat products.

Red Hat received a call last week from Amazon.com. They were getting complaints from Amazon customers who had purchased products through Amazon's auction site from sellers they believed to be selling products from Red Hat Inc. These products turned out to be CD-ROMS that consisted of free ftp downloads of Red Hat Linux, produced by independent vendors.

In order to avoid confusion and to protect our trademarks we explained our trademark policies to the Amazon staff. This is simply that you may download and resell Red Hat Linux. You should not, however, attempt intentionally or otherwise, to confuse buyers into thinking they were buying Official Red Hat Inc. products.

So we request that independent vendors call their product something other than Red Hat, and not use our trademarks or logos. They may -describe- their product as containing Red Hat Linux, but the product itself must have another name.

All of the reputable vendors of low-cost CD-ROMS that contain free ftp downloaded versions of Red Hat Linux follow this policy without our even requesting it. The current problem has arisen because of the large number of new, sometimes-less-than reputable suppliers who are using retail outlets like Amazon.com's auction site to trick customers into believing they were getting Official Red Hat Linux from Red Hat Inc. at a bargain price when in fact they were getting a cheap knock-off product. Red Hat depends on the open source software development model, and our customers rely on Red Hat Inc. to supply the benefits of this open source model to them. For this reason we publish every line of code we write under open source licenses, in effect we do not own any proprietary software. But we do own our trademarks.

The purpose of trademark law is to enable vendors to identify their products for their customers. If anyone could call their ketchup "Heinz Ketchup" consumers would have no idea when they were buying the product from the Heinz company, and when they were buying a cheap knock-off.

The way trademark law works is that if you do not police your trademarks, if you allow anyone to use those trademarks without permission, then you will eventually lose control over those trademarks. So we grant permission to use our trademarkednames generously to those who ask permission, and we will continue to insist that others do not use our trademarks without permission or in ways that confuse our customers and the marketplace.

This is the problem that Amazon.com wanted us to help them address for their customers. And it is the reason we will continue to enforce our trademarks whenever and wherever anyone attempts to infringe on them.

Cheers, Bob.

ps. The term Red Hat Linux GPL is neither a sanctioned term by Red Hat, nor is it accurate - a significant amount of the code in Red Hat Linux is licensed under BSD, Artistic, X, NPL, and other open source licenses.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Trademark Issue Explained More

Red Hat Trademark Issue Explained

Comments Filter:
  • 12(may be less in your state) jurors, a few layers, and a judge would probably tell you if you've crossed.

    I would imagine you'd be caught calling a product "this is not red hat linux" and distributing Debian, since you're causing confusion about brand names. It'd be like opening a restaurant called "this is not mcdonalds" and serving fast food.
  • Actually, I think they're more doing it to prevent other people from destroying RH's reputation. In an extreme case, a competitor could have people sell broken versions of RH, while the enduser struggling to get it operational would produce an inaccurate opinnion of RH. They have every right to claim this, and I expect them to claim this. If someone is reselling RH, then they should say "RedHat Linux FTP Image" or some crap like that. Simply putting it as "Linux" would suffice also, however they wouldn't sell anything. People specificly name it RH so they can get more attention, money, etc which isn't rightly due them. For the sake of polluting their reputation, RH is taking action. I would do the same if I were in their situation. I think all this chat about RH pushing on OSS community and OSS pushing back is adding conspiracy to replace their ignorance of the future and internals of the company. RedHat would be nothing without the OSS community, and I doubt they'll forget that anytime soon.

  • What is Red Hat really Selling? (Score:3)

    by LL ( 20038 ) on Thursday September 02, 1999 @07:51AM (#1708877)
    1 Red Hat CD =

    $1 CD + $2 download time + Right to support

    Basically the real value of the Red Hat distribution is the rights to 90 days technical support (ie Linux wannabe hand-holding). This is turning software from a product to a service. Until the public is educated into thinking that the CD is more a time limited ticket valid fomr date of purchase rather than a unlimited end-user license, there will continue to be confusion. Perhaps RedHat could spend some of their IPO into running a series of educational ads to help distinguish what exactly it is that they are selling would help the general public to value the necessity of good technical support, a strong reputation to guarentee a warenty (funny how most vendors disclaim that their software actually does anything!) and bug-free software (ObjJoke, every program has at least 1 bug and can be reduced by 1 line, therefore all programs can be reduced to 1 line with a bug in it). The alternative mechanism is to clearly state on the CD a list of reputable resellers where a support guarentee is extended due to prior agreements.

    LL
  • The thing a lot of people seem to not realize (but that Bob mentioned in his letter) is that Red Hat has to do things like this.

    Trademarks aren't something you can get and ignore. If you want to keep a trademark, the law requires you to actively protect or you face the danger of losing it. If you allow a trademark to be used by anyone who feels like losing it, you lose it. It's that simple.
  • I think this applies to the open source commercial distributions (Red Hat, for example) but doesn't make much sense in the context of, say, Debian, which also has a variety of vendors selling CDs from $2 to $50.

    Debian has an official CD image set, which distributors can use, or distributors can roll their own. My Debian discs, for example, are self-rolled with the same scripts Debian uses. The Official discs buy you the guarantee that they've been tested by the CD team (as opposed to by the distributor and whoever he can scrounge up), but since anyone can burn them it's not like the RH situation.

    Your price usually doesn't buy any support directly (though many vendors have donation policies), nor does it support any R&D or anything (except if you buy from a developer who uses the money to compensate for his expenses). If you buy Dale Scheetz's book, or the new book by Goernzen and Othman, you get the dead trees too, but Debian (at least until now) has been a mainly "disc-only" operation. The latter came with the wrong CD attached (you can get a replacement from the publisher though).

    So, an official CD doesn't always buy you much; it really depends on the distribution.
  • What if you mess up burning the CD, so that eg. you miss a few crucial files, or break it so the CD doesn't boot ? It's not Red Hat then, although without taking care, you may *think* it is. The result is that people who recieve these get a bad impression, undeservedly, of Red Hat. This can happen, and unless proved otherwise (eg by selling your own support and manuals) counts as a 'cheap knock-off product'
  • Err... what is going on here?
    no real financial incentive to sell the

    Read the rest of this comment...

    But 'the rest of this comment' adds just two words, 'cheap versions'!

    I can see that truncating long comments to save bandwidth is a good idea, but really, it's not worth it just to save two words. Of course, the line must be drawn somewhere. I would suggest that long comments be split in half, rather than truncated at some arbitrary point. Then at least the 'Read the rest' link actually does something.

  • Just a short response to LL's point... It seems you are criticising RedHat for simply living up to the GNU Manifesto (not that RH actually knows it is doing that). That is, software is not a commodity to sell, it is

    I think that RedHat, out of all the main commercial distributions (not the ones based off of it, they probably get it as well, but the others) best understands the GNU Manifesto. Debian obviously does, but it's a slightly different beast. personally I use RedHat, because it was the closest morally acceptable one when i first installed and haven't had any reason to change to Debian. I do intend to run at least one box off of Debian though at some point in the future.

    - Aidan

  • It takes a general population and media using a term generically to weaken the trademark to the point that another company can use it as a generic noun.

    If only you decide to call PC's "dells", then, no, Dell as a trademark isn't in danger. However, if you, and a vast majority of the population, media etc. picks up on it, then some guy building PC's in his garage will say he is building and selling Dells. That would be a clear cut case of trademark infringement given the current usage of "Dell". However, in this hypothetical, because the term is used generically by most people, the company Dell would have a hard time proving that they defended their trademark.

    It takes the "idiots" nominalizing trademark adjectives in order to open the legal door for the store brand tissue to call itself "Safeway kleenexes."
    LetterJ
    Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
    jwynia@earthlink.net
    http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
  • To me RedHat, SuSe, Debian, etc indicates not the support but that the CD (or system upon which it is installed) contains a particular subset of applications at known versions and with known "patches" applied, with a particular filesystem layout etc. The usefulness is not in getting support from the vendor but in
    • Recognising which particular updates are appropriate.
    • Recognising that security etc reports apply to the particular version
    So that someone with a CD containing what is claimed to be the "RedHat" distribution would apply updates intended for RedHat rather than SuSe etc.
  • But it would still be useful leaving the term RedHat in the description as the user would then know that updates and packages designed for "RedHat" would be suitable. If you removed all reference to RedHat and called it (for example) Emca then users would not necessarily know to apply RPMs designated for RedHat 6.0.
  • No, If I remember right, red hat inlcudes some non-free third party software in their "official" distro. I am not sure if that is all kept on a seperate CD or not, but it would be wise to contact RH directly before burning the official CD, you might end up getting burned yourself when one of those third party vendors finds out you've been pirating their software, intentionally or no


    Tell a man that there are 400 Billion stars and he'll believe you
  • What about 'I can't believe it's not RedHat' or 'I can't believe it's not McDonalds'?
    --
  • There *is* a difference between what you buy in the box with the "Official RedHat Linux" name on it and what you download over the 'net and slap onto a CDROM. It's called _support_. If you expect to be able to get support for your brand new purchase of "RedHat Linux" and then come to find out that you instead get a CD-R with the label "RedHat Linux" written on it with a Sharpie an no "built-in" support options, you are likely to be very upset. (This is not to say that every vendor that slaps a copy of the ftp version of RedHat onto a CDR and writes the name in Sharpie is disreputable, of course. That works just dandy for me, but then, I've never had to call RedHat's support line.)

    The *content* is the same, but the *product* is vastly different. I am amazed that nobody here is making the distinction. (Well, ok, not amazed, this is after all a slashdot discussion area, so maybe disappointed is a better word.)

    -=-=-=-=-

  • When I bought RH 5.2 from the Yahoo online merchant, what was labeled "Red Hat Linux" turned out to be Macmillan's repackaged version. Macmillian adds stuff and provides support but I DID think I was buying the official RH Linux. The price was about right so I didn't think twice about pushing the "Buy" button.


    I for one want what I buy to be spelled out clearly. So not only to the resellers have to say that this is their version of what RH is publishing but vendors need to make sure it's labeled correctly on their site.


    DK

  • Its so blantantly obvious...

    Hell, trolls make good livings here...


  • The problem is not ketchup being moved from bottle to another.
    The product RedHat sells is _not_ Linux. They sell support. If I buy cd that says RedHat I am buying their support of that product. I would expect this to cause more confusion in the future, and they seem to have the right idea.

    --jeff
  • My use of Linux distros has gone something like: SLS->Slackware->CND->RH4.2/5.0/5.2/6.0. Along about RH5.0 I decided I was being a freeloader, that RH was putting something valuable back into Linux, and they should be rewarded. So I bought the "official" RH5.0. I never expected to call the RH support line and never have. (I didn't even register the product.)

    So, was old PT right? Is there a sucker born every minute, and am I one of them?

  • Agreed. I find myself reading Slashdot more for the commentary and reactions than the articles linked to. Any bias or misinformation is usually quickly followed by conflicting views. If you want predigested news, you probably should be reading elsewhere.
  • all of you people getting bent out of shape for no reason, sheesh. I'm glad for your sakes we got a clarification.
  • No, it is not RedHat. It is cheap knock-off.
    RedHat is responsible for stuff that is RedHat.
    RedHat is _NOT_ responsible for cheap knock-off.
  • How is a trademark proprietary information?
    GPL'd software is hardly "proprietary".
    Bob is not the one in need of a dictionary.
  • It looks like, even though Red Hat is now a big scary company with wads of IPO $$$$$, they are still doing the right thing, and not changing one bit. I'm sure this irks many naysayers, but it looks like it isn't going to get any easier to point fingers at them for anything in the near future.

  • Re:last (Score:1)

    by iceT ( 68610 )
    Oh, I don't know... I buy my copies of RedHat because I want to support the company. If that means I buy support with the distro, then that's fine.

    RedHat, if nothing else, is giving the industry and media a focal point. A recognition. My $60 twice a year is a worth-while contribution to that cause. If, along the way, RedHat released some GPL software (USB... Pretty Please? How 'bout a winmodem driver for my Laptop?), all the better.

    It's the GPL/GNU/Linux developers that have to maintain the quality of the product, and give Linux it's integrity.

    It's like the TV News. The people that WRITE the news are behind the scenes, and RedHat is our anchor person... :)
  • I can certainly understand why Red Hat would be concerned about this. I would be pissed if I were the user who purchased a non-official copy, and thought I was getting the Real Thing.

    Not that I wouldn't buy a non-official CD. But I would be concerned about being misled.

    Seems like Bob did a good job of explaining the issue.

    AdamL.

  • Explaining the obvious... (Score:4)

    by Rick_T ( 3816 ) on Thursday September 02, 1999 @07:19AM (#1708910) Homepage
    I just wonder what all the fuss about this was to begin with. Redhat doesn't want to be bugged with support requests from people who bought cheap CDs that Redhat doesn't see a dime of return on. They also don't want people buying said CDs thinking they're entitled to said support and feeling cheated.

    This, to me, seems perfectly reasonable. This also seems to be exactly what they were doing even when we *didn't* have the note from Redhat above.
  • ... but it's still a cheap knock-off -- no printed manual, no support, no RH bumper sticker, and no supporting the programmers and the product's future.
  • To get rid of the confusion:
    Official RedHat Linux - for the boxed sets only RedHat can sell
    RedHat Linux Free Edition - for the copiers (e.g. cheapbytes)
    xxx Linux based on RedHat - where xxx is any name you please and the based on redhat bit is optional. This can be used for distributions similar to RedHat but with upgrades or extra software.

    The free edition should be made available as an ISO image by RedHat and to be called RedHat Free Edition you need to use this image that has been certified by RedHat (however you can't say 'certified by redhat' on the CD or people may think it's official RedHat).

    Anyone else wanting to distribute RedHat derivatives have to use 'based on RedHat' or scrap the RedHat name altogether.

    Users of the RedHat name should mention on the packaging that they are not official RedHat and you can't get RedHat support.

    I think this would clear things up and the official CD image would certainly make things easier for people to download and burn to a CD. That's one of the many good points of Debian and a few others. I think RedHat should adopt it too.
    --
  • It's more than just piece of mind. Buying the official Red Hat set usually entitles you to support from Red Hat, and it includes non-free applications as well. Take a look at this [redhat.com] list to see some examples of what might be included on the set. Some of these are just demos, but I remember that I went and bought RedHat 5.0 box, even though I could have downloaded it, just because it came with a full copy of Real Audio Server. If I thought I was getting these things and then they weren't on the CD, I would be pretty pissed.
  • Obviously, stories like these seem to throw mud in Slashdot's face - not because of the people running the site but the HUGE amount on negative posts that come with it. (This also happened with the Unisys/GIF thing, and the Aussie CDA story)

    Not all the stories are like this, of course, but there's a good number that start as rumors or press releases which could have wide ranging impact and responce.

    Instead of posting these stories as they were submitted, maybe there could be a small group (10 or 20) people that would be willing to follow up on a rumor before it was posted to slashdot in order to qualm the negative responses.

    Yes, that probably means a day or two turnaround for some stories. If it's necessary to tell people that these are being worked on, maybe /. could include a "In progress" box to let us know that this team is in gear. This would hopefully cut down the submissions of the same story about 1000 times.

    And again, this is only for rumors or stories were the full details and implications aren't know. Factual stories eg "Linux 3.0 out today!" can be posted without question.

  • BTW (Score:1)

    by linuxci ( 3530 )
    These were my opinions in the way RedHat should allow people to use it's name. They weren't the official RedHat naming policies although it did seem like I was implying that.
    --
  • The difference, of course, is that McDonald's Corporation is not trying to follow a free software ideology. Red Hat has stated publicly, on numerous occasions, that anyone can copy the distro and sell it for money. So the question now is, if people choose to do so, what rules do we want them to follow? It would be much better if these were stated explicitly up front in a defensible way. Given the choice, who do you want to set the standard for interpreting copyright and trademark law in the context of free software: a member of the community like Red Hat, or the court system? As you consider your answer, consider any three recent computer-related precedents set by the courts...
  • I'm really, really tired of reading stories and comments of a conspiring nature. I'm tired of it. There was absolutely no reason for everyone to explode on RH.
    while (FLAME(SlashDot->next))
    {
    sleep(86400);
    Retract(SlashDot);
    }
  • ...not to mention the little shadowman emblem you get to peel and stick on your case after you've scraped the windows logo off! :-)

  • Maybe RedHat should make "Official Redhat Linux" into something with a different name, like "RedTrenchCoat", "RedBoots", "RedGloves" or even make free version more like "RedUnderwear" because, you get the basics, but you don't get protection.
  • The problem with your logic is this:

    1) I grab the RPMS for 6.0.
    2) I grab the latest XFree86 version.
    3) I compile the XF86.
    4) I build an RPM out of that compile.
    5) I replace the RPM in the 6.0 tree with my compiled version to "add value" to my distribution.

    This could work an any machine, but it could also crash and burn due to library dependencies. Should RedHat be responsible for supporting the mistakes that others make?

    I work in a tech support role so I know what it's like to try and support a program/script that someone else wrote. It's not worth my time or effort when I can just tell the person on the other end to use the official program that we do support.

    RedHat charges $X for a version that they have checked out and are fairly sure will install and work on any machine. And if it doesn't, well they did it so they know where to look to fix the problem. It would not be in their best interest to charge $Y to support some home brewed distribution that might or might not be %100 RedHat.
  • I guess this isn't a violation of the quiet period is it? Does that only apply to press release type stuff, marketing, etc? Just curious if anyone knows.
  • As an idea maybe RH could sell support for copies of their CDs. I.e. you buy a RHL CD off somone on Amazon. Turns out its not 'Official'. Well hey you only paid $10 for it. Call up RH. They can't help cuz its not their supported version. Pay $x. Get support. Not the perfect solution, but a reasonable one. I'm not suggesting they support Caldera, Debian, or even Mandrake. But their official distro that someone downloaded and then bought support for.

    That has a major problem with it though: what if it turns out that whay they have is not an exact copy of the Official distrobution? Big problems with training tech supp reps then, if they have to deal with figuring out whether it's really the distro or not. After all, just because it's says it has the RHAT distrobution doesn't mean it does, or that it's not modified.
    ---
  • >> Frankly, I think Red Hat would do consumers a favour, by unbundling the support service from the CD by itself. ...

    Actually, Red Hat does this. From their web site, you can purchase the Red Hat Core package for $40US, which are the binary and source CD's but without the Applications Demo disk, printed manuals, support, etc. They also offer various separate support programs ranging from a few hundred dollars for per-incident to well into five figures for 24/7 unlimited support.

    >> Are they waiting for enough market share and volume to simply fork from Linux, and produce some kind of
    semi-proprietary version, in which free and non-free software are inextricable mixed, making the free content unfree?
    After which they can capitalize on the market share Red Hat name, built using free resources, to disallow the freely copying
    of the CD, and in effect insisting on a license fee per copy? ...

    Red Hat once mixed proprietary code with Free Software, but have been moving away from this since 5.0. In 6.0, the only proprietary package left is Netscape. What you're suggesting of Red Hat more appropriately describes the practices of other commercial Linux distributors.

    >> Therefore, I think the GPL should be adapted quickly, to prohibit that practice of putting GPLed software on a single
    medium together with proprietary software, in effect removing from the buyer the freedom to copy the free content,
    because he is not allowed to copy the proprietary content. ...

    That sounds extraordinarily bad, and similar to the problem with version 1 of the GPL which version 2 and the LGPL were intended to correct.

    ---------------------
    the SlashDot spellchecker:
  • Let's not confuse the "Red Hat Linux Distribution v6.0" (ie an ordered collection of 1's and 0's) with "Red Hat Linux v6.0," the product. Red Hat Linux, the product includes a CD, manual, box, assorted packing material and the right to obtain support under certain conditions. People who take a CD and burn the 1's and 0's onto it are not creating "Red Hat Linux" -- they're creating a CD containing the "Red Hat Linux Distribution." The two are *not* the same thing.
  • I like the "Red Hat Linux Free Edition" idea - people used to shareware (sorry) will grasp that they're missing something if it's "free" - this time, though, instead of functionality, it's support.

    I've always wondered why RH ISOs weren't more prevalent on the 'net - I always assumed that RH didn't want to make it *too* simple to burn a RH cd? And I couldn't blame them for that. :-)
  • Whoa there. I think you are getting ahead of yourself. Its truly sad that the most pervasive legacy of Microsoft is that it has become the embodiment of all that is wrong with commercialism. Also since MS is so large people believe that any company must eventually walk to the dark side. Believe it or not there are companies out there who care about their customer base, quality of product etc. Now to argue directly against your rally that the GPL should be changed so that makers of proprietary software cannot bundle GPL with their costly software and thus nullify the "freeness" of the software. First, this is exactly the case with commercial non-open unices. Used 'ls' on a Digital Unix machine lately? Second if you really want the GPL software bundled with the for-cost propriatery system, download it elsewhere. Since it is GPL the source is available somewhere. Third, you are confusing the "freeness" of the software. We've all heard the free as in speech vs. beer stuff before, so let me put it in a different manner. If you want the whole package you are going to have to get the whole deal, like going to a restaurant that gives free beer with every steak dinner. You can still get it free by going over to your buddy's house and mooching or you can get that really juicy steak and enjoy your free beer. That's my $0.02. Gimme two seconds while I get into my asbestos suit. TC
  • Redhat has become famous even among the computer illiterate (my wifes boss, who knows next to nothing about computers, was advised to buy Redhat stock). So protecting their name is important. Vendors pretending to sell a version of Redhat that comes with RedHat support (when in fact it doesn't) are being dishonest, period.

    Just to lighten things up a bit, when can we expect to see Redhat release their latest version with the new 'Mandrake compatible optimizations'. Tit for Tat hehe.
  • IANAL, but I hope one of the law students reading /. can confirm...

    As I understand it, you can use someone else's trademark to describe your own product, but you can't use it without permission in a way that implies an endorsement by the trademark holder.

    Trademark cases can get hairy because, of course, implication is in the mind of the beholder. If I write an OS that has absolutely no connection with Linux, call it "Finnux", and sell it, can Linus Torvalds sue me for infringing on his trademark? His lawyer and my lawyer would go to court and argue over what potential customers would think; would the similarity in names confuse them, even slightly?

    (Suppose someone else makes an OS that's just as bad as Finnux but calls it "VaporOS". Some people pick up the Finnux boxes for a closer look because of the name's similarity to Linux, but leave VaporOS on the shelf. Finnux has thus received a benefit from the Linux trademark.)

    But if I say in my advertising, "my product is just as good as Linux", that's a descriptive statement, and can't be grounds for a trademark suit.

    If I were marketing unofficial Red Hat CD-ROMs, I would probably label them something like this: Seth's Linux Distribution
    This is an exact copy of all the open-source software in Red Hat Linux 6.0.
    It is not sold, endorsed, or supported by Red Hat Inc.     and I would feel pretty safe. Customers would see "Red Hat" in /etc/issue and so forth, but by that time, they've already bought the software, so I haven't used "Red Hat" as a brand name to sell it to them.

    (Of course, if some local computer store buys my CD-ROMs wholesale, installs one on a computer and then uses that computer to demo the distribution, with all the Red Hat logos on the screen ... I don't know if I could get in trouble for that.)

  • There's a difference between a brand name (Red Hat) and a product (Red Hat Linux). What the product is (or how it's licensed) doesn't matter in regards to my argument.

    My inital response (12 jurors, etc) was part joke, part serious. In an extreme case, you'd have to settle in court if the name was used imporperly or not. And you're not settling anything about if Red Hat software is free or not. You're settling the fact that someone may be improperly use the Red Hat name and/or logo to misrepresent a product. Again, this has nothing to do with the GPL, nor will (or should) it prevent me from making a CD distro out of it and saying "Enry Linux, based on Red Hat Linux. This version is not supported by Red Hat. $1.99". How hard is this? The name of the distro is "Enry Linux", and thus has no official relationship to Red Hat, other than the fact that I mention it's based on Red Hat, and it's not supported by them.

    Now, if I started to make a CD called "Red Hat Linux" and that's all I called it, I think that would be grounds for me to get a call from a lawyer about it. I'm misrepresenting Red Hat, since I'm implying that I can sell you a product for $1.99 that has printed documentation, support, etc.

    Perhaps the answer is to clearly mark what the software does or does not include. For example:

    Linux, based on Red Hat Linux 6.0. No manual, no support. $1.99.

    You're not misrepresenting Linux (since it is Linux). you're not misrepresenting Red Hat (since you say it's based on and clearly indicate no manual, no support).

    PS I'm a RHAT shareholder.
  • Well,
    For clarification of a point here - the things you get that are extra with "Official RedHat Linux" box set is:

    (1) Relatively [IMHO] useless manual which can be downloaded in its entirety in PDF Form from RedHat's site.

    (1) Powered by RedHat case logo sticker [which i find cool but i'm easily amused]

    (1) RedHat Bumper Sticker

    (1) Source Code CD [containing all the source code for RedHat - downloadable from their site

    (1) Applications CD - this contains demos of alot of different commercial applications for RedHat, as well as some free ones (Corel WordPerfect for example - and i think staroffice might be on there)

    Installation Tech Support

    So, In all honesty you are paying for a lot extra. It isn't petty - it's protecting their image. Sure, its cool that you get alot of this stuff free from them w/o a cent - but it's important to maintain a good image by ensuring people know if they are buying a boxed set with all of those aformentioned goodies and extras - or a burn of a downloaded copy of Redhat. All RedHat is really asking for is some assistance in clarification.

    "It also avoids pissing off the Anonymous Cowards... :) " YAH! Damn Anonymous Cowards =p

    -brendan
  • They aren't selling 'Official RedHat Linux' or even really 'RedHat Linux'. They are selling 'RedHat'. All of their branding is based on that name. Not that name with some special attached qualifiers to show that it comes from them. They spent their money building their brand, and as a result, they can do whatever they want with it.
    Instead of forcing RedHat to sell 'Official RedHat Linux', we should instead be forcing the people selling copies to sell 'CD With Copy of RedHat Distribution', or something like that.
  • From the looks of it, she is the press contact for redhat:
    Worldwide: +1-919-547-0012

    Fax: +1-919-547-0024

    For presales technical questions, quantity orders, reseller inquiries, or
    +1-919-547-0012

    Worldwide Headquarters

    Mailing Address

    P.O. Box 13588
    RTP, NC 27709

    Shipping Address

    2600 Meridian Parkway
    Durham, NC 27713
  • I'd rather have my news straight thanks. Thats why I like slashdot and use -1 filtering. I prefer deciding for myself what I think is worth reading or true.

    I guess I've been used to the fact that printed news isn't truth for about 30 years now, so it hardly surprises me when breaking news is distorted or wrong. If done intentionally that's something to worry about. If you think unverified reporting doesn't happen in the mainstream press, just read the first article on the hotmail hole from Reuters -- it's largely just Microsoft PR passed along as news. If you never read another story you wouldn't understand what really happened. If you were reading slashdot though, you already knew from the comments, by the time that "verified" story hit.

    People slandering RedHat on the basis of rumors when they can't defend themselves is somewhat regrettable, true. But I don't blame slashdot, I blame those with the itchy trigger fingers. Did any of the anti-RedHat rants convince you of their evil? Didn't me.


  • I see Bob Young's point, and it seems to me to be entirely reasonable, but this is still a two-edge sword for Red Hat. Lots of people buy Red Hat based on their reputation and market position. Even people who have no intention of calling tech support shell out money for the official Red Hat version of Linux.

    But a lot of other people don't, and the easiest way for people selling "knock-off" versions of Red Hat to rename them is to sell Mandrake Linux instead. I don't think many people who are used to buying the unofficial version of Red Hat on CD for a few bucks are going to be persuaded to shell out $40+ for the official version.

    I don't know how Red Hat will come out on this, but it can only be good news for Mandrake.

    TedC

  • well, if you add a newer version of KDE and recompile it with an experimental and potentially buggy version of gcc it becomes something very different :)

    I know what you meant by that. That was a cheap shot.

  • The words "Official Red Hat Linux" don't really mean much when I've been using linux for a few years now, and they want $80 for their "Official" CD. I can't afford that! I can buy it on eBay or somewhere else for about $5 and it's the same thing. If it's not, buy another one, then I'm spending $10, but I'm saving $70!! I can buy some new hardware with that, or I can pay for college. Their CD's used to be like $30 or something, that was reasonable, now it's really inflated. I just want the CD on hand in case I need it, and a copy works fine for me.
  • I bought it for $1.89 from Linux Mall [linuxmall.com]. (Actually, I bought a bunch of different distros; I'm using SuSE.)

    The thing is, not only did I not expect support from Red Hat, I knew that to get that price I couldn't even call Linux Mall to talk to a real person about my order. That's why it was cheap.

    Red Hat probably (hopefully?) pays their tech support team a fair bit of money to answer questions for Red Hat users. Where do they get the money to do that? By selling that same $1.89 CD in a pretty box for $30+.

    I hope it's obvious that if RH offers support to everyone using the RH distro, they will quickly go out of business. So they limit support to people who have paid for it by buying an Official RH package.

    Red Hat Linux: $1.89. You want support with that? Another $30, please.

    The problem that initiated this article is that some people are selling the equivalent of those $1.89 CD's on Amazon and eBay and so on, and either accidentally or intentially implying that purchasers are getting the Official product with support included.

    To protect those purchasers, RH is simply saying "Don't call it Official if it isn't. Don't give your buyers the impression that they can call for support."

    Duh.

    Have you got your tickets to VCF 3.0 [vintage.org] yet?

  • Just a short response to LL's point... It seems you are criticising RedHat for simply living up to the GNU Manifesto (not that RH actually knows it is doing that). That is, software is not a commodity to sell, it is information to give away. So if you want to make money from software you must actually add value. And the clearest way to do that is to sell support. Manuals, and human help.

    Seems to me that is all RH is actually doing, even if we may agree they charge a dear price for it.

    --
    cu,
    Bruce (still using 0.99.14 with a 486 pc)

    drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
  • hmmm, if they had thought of it, I think a certain company might have included such a scenario in it's appropriately title Day of The Dead Documet. Negative marketing works in politics, why not in software.
  • You missed the point. The problem is crooks who buy those $2 Cheapbytes disks, and then resell them for $20 on auction sites as "Red Hat Linux" disks. People think it's the official distro, with support and everything else. And they get scammed.

    Actually, it's sold for closer to $4. Check out [ebay.com] the auction in question, or this one [ebay.com]. Now, I get my copies of RedHat from LSL [lsl.com] so I have no problems with reselling Red Hat. If I need a copy of Red Hat, I know where to get it, and it's pretty clear what I'm getting.

    However, is it clear to the bidder's on these actions as to what they are getting? The title of one says "$129" value. Is what I get from LSL [lsl.com] a $129 value? No. How about the Boxed set from Best Buy? Yes. The title of the other says "Not Copys". What does that infer?

    When you open the auction, what do you see? Ah, a picture of the boxed set. But then when you read the fine print you see "I do not sell the 'Official Boxed Set' in this ad." and "Artwork to represent familiar content." Isn't this bait and switch?

    Suppose Red Hat sold their product like that? Would that be legal? Notwithstanding the use of Red Hat's trademark, how about just some ethical business practices.

    To sum it up, I can imagine that a lot of people who bid on these are not Linux "experts". They've probably seen Red Hat at their local Best Buy and are interested in seeing what it's all about. Now they find that they can get it for an 1/8 of the price on eBay. For one, it's marketed as being "just like the boxed set at Best Buy". Except for the phony "disclaimer" which basically is no different then a a car salesman selling you a car with a V8 and then after you've purchased it and found out it only has a 4cyl saying "Oh, you didn't read the fine print, that only comes in a "special order" model. And second, I can't imagine a newbie understanding that there are 2 different ways to get "Red Hat". That auction certainly doesn't make an effort to distinguish to unknowledgedge users the difference. The difference between LSL [lsl.com], Cheapbytes [cheapbytes.com], and the others, and these auctions, are, as Bob said, the companies see to it that there is a distinguishable difference.

    -Brent
  • >Actually, due to the stipulations of TM law, they
    >ARE selling "RedHat Linux". You can't trademark
    >a noun.

    That's oversimplifying matters. That aside, find a dictionary with "RedHat" in it . . .
  • Almost... the correct equivalency is:

    p = That that is is that that is not is not == That that is not is not that that is is.

    Or,

    p == That that is not is that that is is not.

  • This is not the first time the ketchup comparison has been made by Young--the first time is in O'Reilly's book Open Sources, I believe.

    The full analogy is something like this: Anybody could make ketchup on their own if they wanted to, but most people don't want to take the time to do it, so they'll buy it bottled. For practical purposes, ketchup is ketchup, and it doesn't matter what the label says on it. But Heinz still has 80% of the ketchup market, solely from brand recognition: they've gotten the buying public trained to think of Heinz when they think of ketchup.

    So what's this mean for Linux? Essentially, Red Hat's business strategy is to become the Heinz of the Linux world. Linux's licensing status makes it a commodity OS--anyone can package it or even "roll their own" without a distribution--just like (his argument goes) ketchup is a commodity. But if people think of Red Hat when they think of Linux, they'll be the market leader. Quality isn't irrelevant, of course, but it's not as important as the network effect: "everybody else uses Heinz, it must be the best."

    (One presumes this makes Caldera the Hunt's of the Linux world. Debian is an organic farmer's co-op that sells their ketchup in Mason jars.)

  • RedHat performs the *service* of organizing the software and placing it on a CD, which they sell.
    Their brandname depends on the right stuff being in the right place on the CD.

    They don't own Linux, hence they can't sell it.


  • Actually, due to the stipulations of TM law, they ARE selling "RedHat Linux". You can't trademark a noun. Kleenex® brand tissues, Pentium® processors, etc. The trademark is the adjective, but must be used with the generic noun or, in this case another trademark. The use of the trademark as a noun is the first step toward losing the trademark. Kleenes is one that is on its downward slide. People are now referring to kleenexes instead of tissues. If that continues, Kleenex may cease to be a defensible trademark. The proper use of the Linux trademark would be LinuxTM operating system or LinuxTM operating system kernel.

    "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

    LetterJ
    Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
    jwynia@earthlink.net
    http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia

  • To Hemos and other slashdot story posters (Score:3)

    by Hasdi Hashim ( 17383 ) on Thursday September 02, 1999 @09:11AM (#1708952) Homepage
    I think it is high time you anticipate reader's reaction and do extra homework assignments BEFORE you post anything on slashdot main page. I think am speaking on behalf of regular slashdot readers when I say that this pattern is getting old:

    1) post something controversial on slashdot
    2) get a knee-jerk reaction from the 'uninformed public'
    3) do a follow-up to address the concerns and/or fix-up mistakes in the first post

    In this case, you made redhat look bad in the firs t posting. There are regulars who knew that it is not as bad as it looks and red hat has good reasons to protect their trademarks. When you get a hot tip like this, what should have been done is to contact amazon.com and redhat.com, get their official stance, AND THEN post it to slashdot.

    In the past, it is not problem because a) your audience is only a handful of people and b) you just a provide a link to a reputable newsite written by journalist who has done their own homework (or at least should have their homework). This means, your only responsibility is to have a correct and consise summary on their article.

    Now, slashdot is getting more and more of SLASHDOT EXCLUSIVES like this redhat story, the 911 linux dispatch story, and the packetstorm story. Since these was not mainstream at the time of the post, there is no reputable website to link to; there is no 'professional' journalist doing their homework for you. You have to make all the necessary phone calls to verify the story (like Roblimo did in the 911 dispatch story). Now, that you are getting paying doing what you are doing, you have no excuse not to do this.

    I hope you take this criticism constructively. Take care guys.

    Hasdi

  • Reasons to buy Official Red Hat (Score:5)

    by Mark Gordon ( 14545 ) on Thursday September 02, 1999 @09:13AM (#1708955) Homepage
    There are several reasons to buy the Official version of Red Hat (or any other name brand distribution)
    • Support This is the big one, and this is why real money is needed. For every 1000 users of the official version, a certain number will require support, so this actually eats up a share of the cost that can't be amortized over a large number of sales. Note that the grizzled veterans can buy a less expensive version of Red Hat from Red Hat that doesn't include support. What does it include? Read on.
    • Coasters You're paying a little something for the CD. Note that those who sell copies only have to pay for the CD's and don't see any of the other costs. For those, keep reading.
    • Documentation You get some sort of book with instructions, some of which are bound to be handy. Dead trees cost money, at least a couple bucks. On top of that, someone has to write the stuff. I pay for Perl books from O'Reilly at least in part to subsidize Larry Wall, just as I pay for GNU books at least in part to subsidize RMS.
    • Distribution-specific Research & Development The people who design the distribution (decide where to put things, what permissions they should have, and take the time to compile, install, test, and package all the packages) need to get paid. This can be made up by volume of sales.
    • Non-specific Research & Development Money to support the folks who are doing research for Red Hat (or whatever distribution) that is of benefit to the whole community. Alan Cox is the poster boy for this concept, but a number of others do paid work for Red Hat and other distributions that ultimately benefits all Linux disributions. This is one reason to pay full price even if you no longer need support. The community can use about as much money as we can dump into it. Not all distributions are created equal in this regard: some give back more to the community than others. Shop around.
    The cheap versions also have their uses:
    • Evangelism If I pay $2 for a CD, I'm more willing to loan it out to newbies who want to take Linux for a test drive. If they need support, they can call me. I tend to keep recent versions of pretty much all the major distributions, and this is the only way I can keep this affordable.
    • Testing I've been burned on this. If you're actually releasing binaries for Linux, it's a good idea to test them on a bunch of different distributions. Keeping up with a bunch of different distributions is most affordable when you pay $2 for them.
    In defense of Red Hat:
    • As someone pointed out in a comment on the previous article, there's some risk of clueless newbies buying cheap copies and thinking they come with support. When Red Hat tells them they haven't paid for support, clueless newbies can get upset. Clueless newbies are like that. Still, we as a community generally want to avoid pissing off newbies, since it's bad for evangelism.
    • Software patents inherently suck. Keeping source code in Jack Benny's vault inherently sucks. Security through obscurity sucks. These things all exist in order to protect IP owners, and they're of no real benefit to consumers. Copyright, when abused, sucks. However, in many cases, it's actually intended at least in part to protect consumers. If some bastard sells copies of Red Hat CD's and tries to pass them off as official, he's not ripping off Bob Young nearly so much as he's ripping off the poor suckers who get mislead into thinking they're buying a support contract, keeping Alan Cox supplied with penguin mints, etc. Some of the legit bargain resellers make it quite obvious that they're selling the "you-get-no-support" version. Linux Mall even goes so far as to encourage users to buy the full-price versions. They presumably (I'm guessing here, but it's a pretty safe guess) buy the official boxed versions wholesale, making the official version more profitable for them and leaving them with no real financial incentive to sell the cheap versions.
  • Two points.
    • Firstly: P.I.R.H.L. : In the tradition of G.N.U. I suggest PIRHL, standing for PIRHL is not Red Hat Linux. Recursive acronyms are cool (plus the whole point is that it is RH, just like GNU is only not Unix legally....) Plus it sounds like a certain programming language that I think is really quite neat....
    • Secondly, as the nice people from Debian suggested the other day, this is about build integrity. The Debian project insist, for you to call you disc "Official Debian Linux" you must be able to trace the ISO image of it to a genuine disc.

      This ensures that if a disc claims to be of Debian vX.Y it is exactly the same (ie bootable and everything) as the one the OSF are selling.(Certainly, my copy of RH is from Mcmillian (sp?) It isn't bootable, ie it doesn't behave exactly the same as the original.. This is not a good thing in the eyes of RH.

  • They sell support to the newbies, but many experienced users might buy Official Red Hat for other reasons:

    • To pay Alan Cox's salary (or that of many other free software programmers).
    • To buy mindshare. Even though it might not be the best distribution to actually run, a retail sale of RH does more to fuel media hype (and buy attention) than a free download of Debian or Mandrake. The more people there are that hear about linux, the more potential developers we have.

    These are the same reasons I might buy a VA Research system instead of a $400 box on the net; I don't need the support, but want to support companies that have been on our side all along.

    JMC

  • Kleenes [sic] is one that is on its downward slide. People are now referring to kleenexes instead of tissues. If that continues, Kleenex may cease to be a defensible trademark.

    Probably not. Just because the great unwashed masses call a generic product by a brand name doesn't mean the trademark becomes unenforceable. Kleenex can't go around suing everyone who says "Kleenex" in reference to generic store-brand tissues. The only way the Kleenex trademark would become invalid is if those store-brand tissues said "Generic Kleenex" on the box, and the Kleenex people didn't take legal action.

    If I decide to call all personal computers "Dells", it doesn't mean Dell is in danger of losing its trademark; it means I'm an idiot.

  • It would really help if RedHat make images like Debian does. Would save a lot of hassle making sure I symlinked everything properly. (This wasn't actually a problem this time around (RH6.0), but I had some trouble with RH5.2)
    --------
    "I already have all the latest software."
  • I can absolutely see why they are ticked, and yes-I saw a lot of the "cheap knockoffs" on ebay and others right after the 6.0 release.

    What I don't understand is the Heinz Ketchup comparison...If you want to compare it to this situation, wouldn't it still be the exact same Heinz Ketchup-maybe without the label? The ingredients would be the same, because they came from the same factory, but with less info about the product.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not misunderstanding what is going on-these people on the auction sites are definately trying to trick people into thinking you are getting an official box set. And, I can see why they don't want them to use their logos and the Red Hat name. But as far as I am concerned, by calling them "cheap knock offs" they are wrong.

    There is no "knock off" about it-you still get a useable distribution, and it is still Red Hat linux. Sometimes Rob's analogies are unneccesary, it almost seems like he is trying to convince himself.
  • This may seem to be true but it is always helpful to the community as a whole to have the watchdogs around. Never trust a for-profit corporation because they are for one thing: profit. This is not to say that a company can't have good intentions, but who really knows the truth? Only the higher-ups and the shareholders. This is why the community must always be on guard. I see no harm in that kind of an attitude.
  • Actually, the Communications Law class I took said that's *exactly* what it means. In fact, that's precisely how Bayer lost the trademark for aspirin. It became a household term, and the courts ruled that it is now merely aspirin and not Aspirin(tm).
  • Sorry, but no thanks. I can deal with finding out something is not what I thought it was, I even check back after reading an article. It's the information age, if you don't do the follow ups on your own you have no reason to complain that you got the wrong information. This isn't a chat room. It's a discussion and news service run not by Hemos, Taco, nor anyone else but the readers.

    There's no reason to separate the clarity crew or slashdot ministry of truth from the readers. The readers are the "Ministry of Truth".

    And frankly, I don't think the readers have full responsibility. I do in fact believe it was also partial RedHat's responsibility to announce this before we had to find out from slashdot.

    I've been waiting for a news service that actually fights back. So no I don't want to make anyone more comfortable.

    I'm calling for an Announcements Category and an Announcements Slashbox across the bottom of the screen since it is a special slashbox.

    As fo the Unisys GIF thing... I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that one has to wonder what the point of a $40K education is if you can't start a business because you have to be Bill Gates to afford all the ridiculous patents?

    Sure we had a few loud mouths flaming at 451 F degrees. Now you know why.

    And the Aussie CDA thing DID HAPPEN! I don't see how that was a rumor.

    By the way how would the slashdot Ministry of Truth cut down on submissions? I'd expect it to quadruple given the fact people do want information.
  • * Thread articles as well as posts. E.g. this article would be the next in the RH Trademark thread, and so on...

    That's what the more on... slashbox is for. I do like the threaded article idea.
  • Ok, maybe there's some misunderstanding. This is a publicly run news site. Hence, we have all those people who do a great job hunting broken links and side stories. C'mon.

    What do we have to do to get that concept out to the world? Hire the USA for Africa chorus to do We Are Slashdot?

    To put it another way this is a Free News site like in Discussion, not Comments (Free Speech not Beer).

    I'm working on a few high impact projects, and the greatest kick is the $0 cost in R&D. Zilch, nada, ZERO. Just thye cost of an Internet account. Heck a school email account would suffice except that I escaped from college.

    Slashdot can do the same. People have to realize this isn't television. It's news for anyone who wants to sweat a little to get it and maintain it.

  • I've seen those posts on not only amazon but other auction houses where someone is intentionally duping bidders into thinking they are paying for a retail product when it is apparent that they are not to the dubious buyer. I applaud Redhat for their efforts to protect the "newbie" consumers from such fraud.
    Joseph Elwell.
  • Someone had made mention of it before, that when you download the packaged version of RedHat and burn it to a cd, then in fact you are still getting a RedHat copy of Linux. However, I have seen other distrobutions (not mentioned) that will use parts of Redhat for their own distro. This is not a Redhat product. Although (for example) the install might look the same, and the basics of the directory structure are the same, the packages contained, defaults, services turned on, etc ... might be totally different, in effect this makes a new distrobution.

    bleh -- nuff said...

    No matter where you go, there you are. --Bucakroo Banzai
  • That was an article posted without ANY concrete evidence whatsoever. I'm VERY dissapointed at Roblimo's distortion of the facts.

    It's almost sickening

  • Obviously the Heinz ketchup analogy is pretty poor. Nobody is burning "hello world" or pr0n some such other random crap to a CD and attempting to pass it off as Red Hat. They are actually copying the binaries, which in my world translates to exact equivalence. A better analogy would be that of pouring the contents of a Heinz ketchup bottle into a second bottle, and then selling the product. The consumer would wind up with precisely the same ketchup.

    But what they wouldn't get would be peace of mind. Do you really want to buy rebottled ketchup? What if it's been contaminated? Can you get a refund if it turns out to be red paint? Similarly people who buy RHAT spoofs aren't getting any assurance that their product will be high quality, and they will have no recourse when things get sticky.

    But to quibble over the difference between "Red Hat Linux" and "Official Red Hat Linux" is not just petty, it's confusing. What RHAT should really do is claim the exclusive right to advertise "Official Red Hat Product Support". In this way, you could redistribute their distro, but you could not claim that your product was "Red Hat Linux with Official Red Hat Product Support". A little marketing down the road, and consumers would soon realize that these four words were just as crucial as "Intel inside" and demand that their copies be official.

    It also avoids pissing off the Anonymous Cowards... :)

    -konstant
  • I liked the "cheap knock-off product" line...If you download and burn a CD of RedHat Linux, isn't it still RedHat?

    It's a RedHat distribution, and if it's for your own personal use, you can call it RedHat, or even Linux 2k if you want.

    If you're going to burn disks and sell them.

    What kind of QA are you doing on the burned disks?

    What kind of support are you providing, your home phone number, your home page with 700 megs of files?

    Are you including a RedHat bumpersticker?

    Just like the letter says, people bought Joe-Bob's RedHat, and found they couldn't get any support from RedHat, which makes sense, since RedHat didn't sell them anything.

    Bob's letter sounds reasonable to me, and they do have to be aggressive about protecting their trademark, or they will lose it.

    Proud owner of one official copy of RedHat 5.1, and 4 copies of the RedHat disctribution.

    George

  • I'm glad the information came straight from Bob. (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 02, 1999 @07:27AM (#1708977)
    It really endears me to Red Hat that we'd get the scoop straight from the head of Red Hat explained in a well thought-out, clear manner. They obviously thought it was important to take the concerns of the community seriously. Keep up the good work!
  • I'm not surprised at all to learn that this issue was nothing but the standard over-reactionary response by the linux community. Especially when it involves RedHat, which people seem to love to jump all over and up and down on as soon and as quickly as possible.
    I am extremely pleased with Slashdot recently, as the staff appears to be doing a lot more background work on the news items they post. Its a nice thing to see Slashdot every now and then as the source of the news item rather than referring it somewhere else.
    I was also pleased when Roblimo did the investigate work on the Unisys/GIF thread insanity that was going on regarding that. I am also very pleased to see that Hemos got the official info from RedHat on this matter.
    It seems to me this is very good for slashdot, and I hope to continue to see the staff doing investigative news work to help keep the facts straight on issues like these. Good job guys.

  • Re:Interesting (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The point he was trying to make was that the people auctioning the software were setting up the auctions so that the buyer thought they were getting the Red Hat box set, with manuals, extra CD's, and tech support. Thus the buyers were surprised to receive just a cd with Red Hat grabbed from an ftp site.
  • Hatred, actually. It's ever better that way because you only have to rearrange and concatenate the words.

    As someone said, "The pedants are revolting."
  • Instead of posting these stories as they were submitted, maybe there could be a small group (10 or 20) people that would be willing to follow up on a rumor before it was posted to slashdot in order to qualm the negative responses.

    Yes, that probably means a day or two turnaround for some stories. If it's necessary to tell people that these are being worked on, maybe /. could include a "In progress" box to let us know that this team is in gear. This would hopefully cut down the submissions of the same story about 1000 times.
    Ummm, this would require /. to, like, have a real staff, no? Who knows, maybe if Andover throws enough long green behind it we might get a real journalistic entity instead of a bunch of geeks trying their darndest to get us the straight skinny in their spare time.

    Don't get me wrong, I still think /. is the greatest source of high-tech news in the universe... I just don't have unrealistically high expectations of their product given the amount of time they've actually had real capital to work with. I think the above poster does, that's all.

    In a word, patience, my friend, with all the pounding and flaming around here, the only thing that could possibly survive for long is the truth.

    Linux/BSD flamewars aside.

    --
    Unix is like a Vorlon: Incredibly powerful, frequently cryptic, and there's a lot going on behind the scenes.
    -- Alaric, Zen Biker
  • The best idea I have heard on the matter so far...I also don't agree with the Heinz Ketchup analogy, it just doesn't fit the situation. The thing that concerns me right now is: Can they legally (honestly) do anything to stop this? This email sent by Rob is in no way a technical document-more of a request. Amazon can conform to this if they want-but this is going on at ebay and other auction sites as well. As far as thats concerned, what is stopping Amazon and others from ignoring the request and allowing business as usual?
  • Doesn't the concept of open source render this argument obsolete? I would like a clearer definition of the word "cheap" If he means $$$$, then this flies in the face of the "open source" concept. It appears that we are now in it for the $$$$. If he means cheap, as in inferior quality, then he has a point. However, if it is "open source", how can it be cheap? I mean, source code is source code is it not? Granted, some people do write crap for code. But as shared code, would not the source code be identical? We are then back to the point of Red Hat limiting distribution of genuine "Red Hat " Linux so they can cash in on the trademark. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • Red Hat has done a pretty good job of defining itself somewhere between a "Heinz ketchup" and a "Webster's dictionary."
  • Nah, using Red Cap is choice. From the Encyclopedia Mythica (http://www.pantheon.org/mythica/):

    Red Cap

    Red Cap is a thoroughly evil creature. He is a short, stocky old man with long gray hair and claws in stead of hands. He lives on the Scottish Border in ancient ruins of castles, especially in those with a bloody history of war and murder. He owes his name to the fact that he wears a red hat, which is colored by the blood of his victims. Red Cap moves with remarkable speed, despite the fact that he wears iron boots. He can overcome even the strongest man, unless the intended victim remembers to quote a few words from the bible.

    Copyright (c) 1999 Encyclopedia Mythica. All rights reserved. Protected by the copyright laws of the United States and international treaties.
  • You say "$1 CD + $2 download time".
    Actually, these are not the prices on all the world. In Chile, a good CD can cost about 1000 pesos (US$2), and the download time from a standard modem (38400 bps) cost much more than US$2, at least here in Chile. And, for example, me, and about all the people I know is using Redhat, we all want to use almost everything that can be installed from the CDs. And not all of us can download a giant 500+ megabyte bunch of RPMs. So, we buy an official (and supported) copy of the distribution, and use the CDs to install them at as many computers as we and our friends can.
    (Sorry, I cannot continue this posting)
  • I like the "in progress" idea... sort of a queue, huh? But also I like /.'s turnaround time. A coupla features that might be more useful:

    * Allow logged, registered users to up/down any post *once* (just stick a radio button next to it). Instead of filtering/moderation, give us the option to see posts that have been upped by xx% of the users. Of course, you'll need more SQL boxes for that one ;-)...

    * Thread articles as well as posts. E.g. this article would be the next in the RH Trademark thread, and so on...
  • No....as long as it's not labled as "official" RedHat linux or is clearly labled as a "copy" of RedHat, it's not a "knock-off." How can you "knock-off" a free product?

    "Knock-off" generally infers an inferior product. If you're getting a copy of the "genuine RedHat Linux," then it's not an inferior product, especially if you know in advance that it's a copy.

    For example, would you consider "Cheap Bytes" to be a "knock-off"? I sure would not!

    I definately see the RH Software's point about (alleged)false and/or misleading advertising leading people to think they were getting the "official boxed set." That being said, though, there's something to be said about using your head, people. I mean, if someone says they'll sell you the "official boxed set" of RedHat linux for $20, something's wrong...either it's NOT the "official boxed set" or it's "hot" or incomplete (burned copy of the ISO image.)

    The only thing I disagree with you on is the terminology "cheap knock-off." Just because someone either downloaded the ISO image and burned it onto a bunch of CD Roms, or made copies of an official CD, does NOT mean that it's a "cheap knock-off."

    I *do* agree that they should make it clear that it's not the "official boxed set."
  • Why are all these painters calling their products art now? It's paint and canvas last time I checked.

    Sure, the components are freeware. But some of that freeware was written by Redhat, and even for all the parts that weren't, there is a good amount of effort involved in putting everything together and trying to make sure it works.
  • It was perhaps a mistake for the story to posted in the first place, but I have to give credit to the people behind slashdot and the slashdot posters to not be a slave to the "facts" of a story. When something doesn't sound right or there is no evidence to back it up, if you read the comments, you'll find out pretty soon. With other news sources (tv, radio, etc.), you don't get this. And no other web news source has reader comments as such an integral part of the news experience.

    And probably most impressively, slashdot is never afraid to admit that it was wrong. Every news source makes mistakes sometimes. I'd rather read something that perhaps makes more mistakes, but admits them right away than a news source that makes fewer mistakes, but never fully admits it when it does.
  • If you follow the link below, you will find someone (funny his nickname is "slashdot") has a Red Hat CD with the RedHat logo on it? Is this the sort of thing RedHat is trying to stop? http://auctions.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/auction- glance/Y01X4278227X5729503/qid=936301611 /sr=1-13/002-9881716-9147440
  • I wondered the same thing as well, some people believe that it has something to do with licensing issues. There are some however, but they're not direct copies and are on slower sites which became annoying to download from (on an OC-3). Instead of finding a proper image, I just downloaded /i386 from cdrom.com as a giant tarball and made my own image following the howtos available from LDP.

  • Knee-jerk reactions (Score:4)

    by kjz ( 26521 ) on Thursday September 02, 1999 @07:38AM (#1709004)
    What really amazes me is how quickly and vehemently many people reacted when this story first appeared. Instead of waiting to hear all sides of the issue, many people automatically assumed the worst.

    It seems to me that there is a very prominent fear in the Linux community of any attempt to commercialize Linux. I have seen countless comments over the last few months (here on /. and elsewhere) fearing or predicting that Red Hat would begin to walk the same path that Microsoft has. Many believe that somehow Red Hat would hijack Linux and pervert it for their own purposes. They somehow equate the high visibility that Red Hat has obtained with the tendency or desire to make money at all costs, including screwing the consumers and end users.

    When I first read the hubbub surrounding the Amazon.com letter, I didn't jump to conclusions. I knew that Red Hat has maintained an excellent reputation for being open and fair, and preventing all uses of the Red Hat moniker outside of officially sanctioned products didn't seem to fit with that reputation. Red Hat is not a company to fear. Not only are they unable to hijack Linux (thanks to the GPL and other licenses), it would be a very bad business decision. They would lose the trust and support of the very developers and community they rely on in order to provide their product.

    Red Hat has done a great job of being open and honest with us in the past. They really do deserve the benefit of the doubt when situations like this arise. I can only hope that those who have risen up against Red Hat in the past will take this into consideration before vilifying them in the future.

  • Re:last (Score:3)

    by aUser ( 78754 ) on Thursday September 02, 1999 @07:39AM (#1709007)
    I totally agree with Red Hat.

    The product they sell, is not only a copy of the linux cd, but an amount of free support as well.

    I think, indeed, that the vendors who copy the Red Hat cd, should say either "a copy of the Red Hat cd" or "based on the Red Hat cd", or something equivalent, that clearly distinguishes their product from the services sold by Red Hat.

    Maybe Red Hat too should distinguish the cd more clearly from the total product they sell.

    I think it's in their interest to emphasize that they are not selling the cd or its content, especially not the content. They should make clear that they are actually selling the support service that the buyer is entitled to, and that the CD is just added for convenience.

    From a business point of view, selling the cd or the content do not make sense for the Red Hat company; as you can freely copy it. As a matter of fact, people who are not interested in the support service should not buy the CD from Red Hat, but buy it from one of the cheaper resellers.

    Frankly, I think Red Hat would do consumers a favour, by unbundling the support service from the CD by itself. They should sell the CD at a realistic market price, much below its current price, and offer the support service separately, probably at a much higher price. It's also fairer to consumers who buy the CD, without ever having the intention to use the support service. Furthermore, the people who want to buy support, are most likely willing to pay much more.

    By bundling both the support and the service, Red Hat raises suspicion.

    Are they waiting for enough market share and volume to simply fork from Linux, and produce some kind of semi-proprietary version, in which free and non-free software are inextricable mixed, making the free content unfree? After which they can capitalize on the market share Red Hat name, built using free resources, to disallow the freely copying of the CD, and in effect insisting on a license fee per copy?

    Therefore, I think the GPL should be adapted quickly, to prohibit that practice of putting GPLed software on a single medium together with proprietary software, in effect removing from the buyer the freedom to copy the free content, because he is not allowed to copy the proprietary content.
  • Wack me on the head with the relization Red Hat does have code from BSD, and other diferent licencing systems. I guess they have the right to implement their own umbrella disribution policy.

    I think this must have everything to do with Tech support and nothing to do with anything else. Those tech people have to get paid, and the officail RH distro is the only dirrect entry that RH has to the market. Hence their only real source of income they draw on to pay the techs, with the new IPO being the exception.

    Those poor newbies that thought they had they had free tech support. I would be mad, really mad at myself(If I were them). You got to be cheap to buy stuff at auction, stupid to buy something that is free. I get a funnny picture in my mind of open sorce software up for sale on an auction. Then again people actually sell their soul on Ebay. Open Source licencing, and the competitive nature of capitalism sure do make a strange mix. This is not the last of these type of changes, at least in my opinion. And BTW, in my opinion I think this is a good thing for RH to do.
    -Diz
  • I think Roblimo had done a good job in the situation. The news was already going around (I heard about it before it appeared on /.) and people wanted to know. If they never posted it immediately people would say that Slashdot was pro RedHat and didn't want to say anything bad about them.

    Roblimo did preliminary investigation (which we never used to get with slashdot - of course Rob (Malda) and the others were at college then so didn't have the time) so didn't just duplicate the story without checking. He indicated that he didn't know the full story and as soon as more was known a followup story was posted, this time by Hemos.

    Of course as Hemos owns shares in RedHat he could have made this all up to make them look good (please note the last part was a JOKE, if you took that seriously I'm worried).
    --
  • How about "Red Light Linux"


    mwa haha!
  • Why is it that whenever a distribution tries to become main stream, they are accused of "becoming Microsoft?" It is quite obvious here that Red Hat has just IPO'd and now has name recognition in the computer industry beyond the level of those of us who simply will go to try to find the best OS to use, or the most agreeable cause to work for.

    In my mind the reaction to the last article about Red Hat falling right into what Suck said they would do, or just the general comparison of Red Hat to Microsoft is all bad. If Red Hat was really turning this corner, do you think that they would have offered the stock to the open source developers such as they did?

    I think that they key point here is that if someone goes to the store and says "I want Red Hat," Red Hat wants to make sure that they get it so that the customer can truly see what red hat is. I think the same people that went to the store a year ago and asked the question, "Does this computer come with the internet installed" are going to asking for Red Hat in a similar manner. Name recoginition is how you will make the desktop, you will not get there with these second name distros based on yours that soley bare your name. If you want to be a Linux hacker and don't want to fall under the "trendy wave" like all this seems to be opening up to, then go out and get a copy of Debian for yourself.

    The fact of the matter is if you really want to see freedom in the computer industry insofar as OS's go, then do go accusing everyone who tries to make a run at name recognition and a run at the desktop as being Microsoft. They may make a lot of money by getting on the average desktop, but what they do with the money is another thing that we haven't had the chance to see. Let us judge them on what they do not what everone else thinks they will do. Anything else is severly unfair.
    ---

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close