Red Hat trademark imperialism

Post #110,646 by rickmoen 7/21/03 1:15:42 AM Reply	Red Hat trademark imperialism Andrew Grygus wrote: Red Hat requires that anyone redistributing their freely downloaded products not only don't call it Red Hat, but clean out all evidence of the Red Hat name and logo from filenames, directories, menus, etc. Web site meta tags must also be cleaned of any inclusion of the Red Hat name or any other Red Hat trademarks. Further, derived distributions may not use any name suggestive of Red Hat. You are absolutely correct that they purport to require this, and I'm writing in not to criticise your post in any way, but rather to point out that Red Hat, Inc. is vastly exceeding its rights under trademark law, in its demands. A valid, registered trademark (or service mark) entitles the registrant to a monopoly on brand identity to the extent that others may not offer goods/services in the same industry that use the same distinctive mark or phrase in such a way as would likely create in customers' minds the impression that the goods were endorsed or sold by the trademark registrant. In other words, the judge would look at my Rick Moen's "Not Red Hat Linux" distribution, and notice the big disclaimer on the first installer screen saying "The Not Red Hat Linux distribution is produced by Rick Moen. Red Hat, Inc. neither sells nor endorses this distribution. The phrase 'Red Hat Linux' and the shadowman logo are registered trademarks of Red Hat, Inc." He would notice that I had GIMPed all the trademark-encumbered artwork with 4-point type saying "This image is a registered trademark of Red Hat, Inc., which however neither endorses nor sells this distribution." And then he would throw the North Carolina lawyers out on their asses. Please note that trademark holders have not even that amount of leverage over free-of-charge redistributors. Red Hat is clearly moving to be the sole beneficiary of the trademark and image they have worked successfully to create. Yeah, they're a dot-com after all. Who knew? What I really love is the bizarre bind that Red Hat's support contract places purchasers (but not other recipients) of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (formerly RHAS) in: The contract runs a minimum one year, renewing automatically unless you opt out near the end. You can terminate the contract with notice after the first year, but not before. Nothing bars you from giving anyone copies of the software. (It's all either open source or at least freely redistributable.) However, if your firm is under an in-force support contract, you agree to have support contracts for each deployment running at your business site. Moreover, you agree to let Red Hat, Inc. visit and conduct compliance audits. It's really very clever (and I'm not saying I'm objecting; rather, I'm admiring the legal machinery): Even though it's almost 100% open source, they're able to impose the equivalent of per-seat licensing on all customers via contract law. And, at the same time, non-customers have absolute freedom to acquire and use copies without restriction, as long as they don't require product support from Red Hat, Inc. Likewise, customers may (but aren't required to) give them copies. I used to have a copy of Red Hat Advanced Server (RHAS) 2.1 -- which is still current, actually. The three variant forms of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are just packagings of RHAS 2.1 with three different support contracts. Anyhow, RHAS 2.1 is just a sort of aging Red Hat with a few patches, mostly for the benefit of Oracle RDBMS. More at [link\|http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/rhel-isos\|http://linuxmafia.co...ux-info/rhel-isos] Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #110,648 by Andrew Grygus 7/21/03 1:40:18 AM Reply	Well, it'll take a while yet . . . . but I expect Red Hat will eventually inherit the Linux boogyman seat from Caldera. "We trusted them and they betrayed us!" I'll have to read Red Hat's contract, but if what you say is accurate The contract runs a minimum one year, renewing automatically unless you opt out near the end. You can terminate the contract with notice after the first year, but not before. and they interpret it the way other companies have (See Ed Fosters's Gripe Line), it has this effect: You can't cancel until the month renewal is due, but if you forget and they invoice you before you cancel, it's too late and you have to pay. Cool. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #110,649 by deSitter 7/21/03 1:41:52 AM Reply	SuSE wins - deserved Advice in life - pick winners. -drl
Post #110,658 by rickmoen 7/21/03 3:52:13 AM 7/21/03 4:14:43 AM Reply	It's actually more benevolent than you're assuming Andrew, I think you have that summarised pretty much the way I understand it -- except that, after the first year, you can cancel and pay only a pro-rata portion of the fees for the new year's coverage -- at any time, with 60 days' notice. I link to the actual contract text from my [link\|http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/rhel-isos\|http://linuxmafia.co...ux-info/rhel-isos] information page, cited earlier. I certainly wouldn't call it anything like a rapacious or coercive contract. As usual, you just have to understand what you're being asked to agree to. I've encounted a number of RHEL customers who've been taken by surprise, but they really should have been paying closer attention when they agreed to those terms. I guess the ironic part is this: No sooner did (most) people using Linux finally became accustomed to paying attention to copyright issues then someone (RH) found an (apparently quite legitimate) way of wrapping otherwise redistributable software in a fairly restrictive, self-perpetuating contract -- and a lot of those same users got taken by surprise a second time. Other than that, it's just an intriguing arrangement: You're perfectly welcome to have the software with no official support (if you can find someone willing to duplicate it for you, which nobody's either required to do or prohibited from doing). Or you can have a copy bundled with minimum 1 year non-transferrable support + updates, leaving you mildly shackled for the duration of your support term and obliged to pay per-seat support fees. You want support/updates? OK, but you're obliged to bleed cash for every host in operation at your site, as long as your firm has even one support contract in force. You don't need support/updates? Fine, feel free to get the software anywhere you can, and we won't hit you up for money. Ingenious, effective, and (I would say) eminently fair, once you get over being surprised at the arrangement's construction. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already. Edited by rickmoen July 21, 2003, 04:14:43 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #110,677 by Andrew Grygus 7/21/03 10:30:00 AM Reply	I was just stating 'worst case' . . . . but I doubt they could get away with it even if they wanted to, given that SuSE is standing by with a nearly "drop in replacement" product. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]

Welcome to IWETHEY!