On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 08:34 -0500, Brian Miller wrote:
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 12:28 +0000, jb wrote:
Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle: More RedHat Legal Shenanigans with CentOS http://nerdvittles.com/?p=8721
Closing the Book on CentOS: [...] http://nerdvittles.com/
Thanks to the author of the above articles.
The author of those pieces needs to read a bit closer. His claim:
In a nutshell, the new RedHat Terms of Service outlaw use of CentOS in any product “unless the combined distribution is an official CentOS distribution.”is not supported by any evidence he provides. What is made clear is that one cannot use the CentOS marks (ie logos, etc.) in a derivative distribution.
Seems to be much sound and fury...
Do you mean Red Hat's ownership of the Centos brand name prohibits something like this example
http://nerdvittles.com/wp-images/piaf20642.gif ?
(source: http://nerdvittles.com/?p=5844)
Why does Red Hat need to 'own' the Centos brand name and do the Centos maintainers, who work hard on Centos for all our benefit, possess the legal ownership - individually or collectively - of the Centos brand that was, or is, being transferred or sold or donated by them to Red Hat Inc. ?
If the Centos maintainers do not own the Centos brand name, which entity does and which entity has the legal ability to give away to a third party complete ownership of the brand name ?
Thank you.