my distribution scheme for GPLed software

Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran at
Tue Mar 4 16:02:29 UTC 2003

ahha.  I headn't heard about the RedHat case, it seems they do
disagree with me, and the confusion of copyright and trademarks is
their fault, not yours like I thought (apologies). Looks like RedHat
are stretching their interpretation of the law.

I suppose trademarks could impede Free software in other ways too:
One of the benefits of FS is that you can choose any company to
get support from, this would be quite a bit harder if companies
weren't alowed to mention that they support RedHat(tm).

I don't think RedHats' claims about their rights under trademark
laws would stand up in court.  Maybe they've caused themselves
some trouble by giving their company and there flagship product
the same name ;)

Most people can ignore this issue since most don't use RedHat
or whatever, but it's a useful discussion for sharing information
before a similar case that does affect us pops up.

Ciaran O'Riordan (who is dissapointed with RedHat)

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:00:04PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:43:48PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:18:02PM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > > > I don't see any GPL violations
> > > 
> > > Surely the restriction on naming is a "violation"?
> > 
> > Nope.  Copyright, patent, and tradmarks are all separate issues.

> RedHat disagree with you: 

More information about the Discussion mailing list