To squelch the questions (related to the changing content on www.centos.org), I decided this needs to be published.
The CentOS Team has been contacted by representatives of Red Hat's hired legal team regarding the use of Red Hat Trademarks on www.centos.org. (Full Email follows.) While the CentOS team feels we are using Red Hat's marks in a fair and legal manner, we have no choice but to eliminate the majority of the Red Hat marks that are being used on www.centos.org.
So over the next few days, we will be cleansing the CentOS website of Red Hat marks and/or possible marks. If you encounter any errors please take a moment to point then out via a comment here or catch donavan in #centos-web on irc.freenode.net.
At this point and going forward the CentOS project is not in any jeopardy. We have a strong group of committed developers and are growing like crazy. CentOS 4 is just around the corner; the future is brighter than ever.
Read the rest here: http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=66
I like the new meta description tag:
"CentOS -- Community ENTerprise Operating System is a free rebuild of source packages freely available from a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor."
I understand where Red Hat is coming from here but also find it very frustrating that the CentOS team can not call it what it is, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible rebuild. From what I read on the trademark guidelines page, they can't say Red Hat or RHEL anywhere for any reason. Does this also mean you can't link to the location where you get the source to build CentOS? Can you still link to Red Hat's Errata pages?
-Forrest
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@caosity.org [mailto:centos-bounces@caosity.org] On Behalf Of donavan nelson Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 1:04 AM To: centos@caosity.org; CentOS-devel Subject: [Centos] Red Hat Legal Targets www.centos.org website content
To squelch the questions (related to the changing content on www.centos.org), I decided this needs to be published.
The CentOS Team has been contacted by representatives of Red Hat's hired legal team regarding the use of Red Hat Trademarks on www.centos.org. (Full Email follows.) While the CentOS team feels we are using Red Hat's marks in a fair and legal manner, we have no choice but to eliminate the majority of the Red Hat marks that are being used on www.centos.org.
So over the next few days, we will be cleansing the CentOS website of Red Hat marks and/or possible marks. If you encounter any errors please take a moment to point then out via a comment here or catch donavan in #centos-web on irc.freenode.net.
At this point and going forward the CentOS project is not in any jeopardy. We have a strong group of committed developers and are growing like crazy. CentOS 4 is just around the corner; the future is brighter than ever.
Read the rest here: http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=66 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:33:24 -0500, Forrest Samuels forrest@liquidcs.com wrote:
Does this also mean you can't link to the location where you get the source to build CentOS? Can you still link to Red Hat's Errata pages?
The answer to that is in the letter:
"Moreover, our client does not allow others to provide links to our client's web site without permission. "
Which is ludicrous.
And would have a funny side effect: if nobody linked to RH, they would disappear from Google :)
Francois Caen RHCE and not so proud all of a sudden
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:06:30 -0800, Francois Caen frcaen@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:33:24 -0500, Forrest Samuels forrest@liquidcs.com wrote:
Does this also mean you can't link to the location where you get the source to build CentOS? Can you still link to Red Hat's Errata pages?
The answer to that is in the letter:
"Moreover, our client does not allow others to provide links to our client's web site without permission. "
Which is ludicrous.
And would have a funny side effect: if nobody linked to RH, they would disappear from Google :)
I imagine that RedHat has given permission to the search engines and media and...everyone who they feel helps them by linking.
Though I agree, it is counter to the way that the web has grown.
Greg
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 20:46 -0700, Greg Knaddison wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:06:30 -0800, Francois Caen frcaen@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:33:24 -0500, Forrest Samuels forrest@liquidcs.com wrote:
Does this also mean you can't link to the location where you get the source to build CentOS? Can you still link to Red Hat's Errata pages?
The answer to that is in the letter:
"Moreover, our client does not allow others to provide links to our client's web site without permission. "
Which is ludicrous.
And would have a funny side effect: if nobody linked to RH, they would disappear from Google :)
I imagine that RedHat has given permission to the search engines and media and...everyone who they feel helps them by linking.
Though I agree, it is counter to the way that the web has grown.
Actually since Google works based on the number of sites linking to you it would effect their ratings.
Paul
Paul wrote:
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 20:46 -0700, Greg Knaddison wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:06:30 -0800, Francois Caen frcaen@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:33:24 -0500, Forrest Samuels forrest@liquidcs.com wrote:
Does this also mean you can't link to the location where you get the source to build CentOS? Can you still link to Red Hat's Errata pages?
The answer to that is in the letter:
"Moreover, our client does not allow others to provide links to our client's web site without permission. "
Which is ludicrous.
And would have a funny side effect: if nobody linked to RH, they would disappear from Google :)
I imagine that RedHat has given permission to the search engines and media and...everyone who they feel helps them by linking.
Though I agree, it is counter to the way that the web has grown.
Actually since Google works based on the number of sites linking to you it would effect their ratings.
Not necessarily. The large corporations pay the search engines to ensure that they come up higher on the response lists.
I understand that RedHat is trying to protect their income. After all, why pay for RHEL if CentOS is free? I basically have two questions that I need to find a good IP attorney to clarify for me:
1) If CentOS is, in fact, a re-compile clone of RHEL with RH's permission (as per the GPL), then how can they legally require that CentOS not disclose that fact? 2) Is it legal to restrict others from linking to your website?
I think RH's going a bit overboard, as there really was no confusion as to whether or not RH was supporting CentOS.
Ben
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:59:11 -0600, Benjamin J. Weiss benjamin@birdvet.org wrote:
Not necessarily. The large corporations pay the search engines to ensure that they come up higher on the response lists.
Google claims that they do not accept payment for placement in their search results. The only place they accept payment is for their Google Ads on the top and side of the page.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
I think RH's going a bit overboard, as there really was no confusion as to whether or not RH was supporting CentOS.
Well, I would not necessarily draw that conclusion. People not accustomed with terminology or the Internet can make wrong assumptions. I regularly get a mail asking how they can update their RHEL distribution using my repositories (when they specifically mean updates).
I could add a big red banner on top that I do not offer updates, and most likely I would still get mails. (often in poor english :))
However, can I be held responsible if some people lack background or are being confused. And how many red banners would clear me from the responsibility ?
That's why I think an official legal complaint should indicate what clear actions they want. Maybe a few specific examples that they think indicate the problem. They should be required to specifically tell what the problem is instead of some vague legal terms that I will never know whether I comply with or not.
Maybe bringing in the lawyers as a first step is not such a good idea. But the legal climate (especially in the US) probably requires such action (and is maybe less intimidating in the US than preceived in Europe).
It would be nice to know exactly what is required in this situation. The secrecy is causing FUD about the whole subject and is damaging Red Hat's reputation indirectly too.
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
Dag Wieers wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
I think RH's going a bit overboard, as there really was no confusion as to whether or not RH was supporting CentOS.
Well, I would not necessarily draw that conclusion. People not accustomed with terminology or the Internet can make wrong assumptions. I regularly get a mail asking how they can update their RHEL distribution using my repositories (when they specifically mean updates).
...
That's why I think an official legal complaint should indicate what clear actions they want. Maybe a few specific examples that they think indicate the problem. They should be required to specifically tell what the problem is instead of some vague legal terms that I will never know whether I comply with or not.
...
It would be nice to know exactly what is required in this situation. The secrecy is causing FUD about the whole subject and is damaging Red Hat's reputation indirectly too.
They would really prefer that you cease operations, discontinue your product, and force everyone to purchase their (overpriced) products. Unfortunately, for them, the GPL prevents them from actually trying to make that happen, so they resort to vague threats, and threats they know are unenforceable (like restricting linking - which I seriously doubt would hold up in any court anywhere, since they have "published" this info into a public forum (the internet)). They are hoping you will think it's more trouble to comply, and fold your shop.
I no longer recommend that company to my clients for any Linux work, because they are completely out of touch with the Linux movement, and Linux' core values. I now happily recommend any of their competitors when my clients ask me what distros. I do recommend CentOS for most everyone.
-Scott
FWIW, I don't think CentOS needs RedHat's name to prove that CentOS is a viable option for the Enterprise (or small business or home user). I think we need to do a better job at promoting CentOS. I think our group already gives better support than RedHat, especially since RedHat's stance is like MS, they only support their apps or their OS. Whereas our group will try to help out anyone with any problem.
BTW, as long as my new digital camera arrives today, I should have some photos tomorrow of LinuxWorld Expo where we have a booth.
They would really prefer that you cease operations, discontinue your product, and force everyone to purchase their (overpriced) products.
"Overpriced" is subjective. My company has happily standardized on RHEL.
I no longer recommend that company to my clients for any Linux work, because they are completely out of touch with the Linux movement, and Linux' core values. I now happily recommend any of their competitors when my clients ask me what distros. I do recommend CentOS for most everyone.
I think that's a bit short-sighted. Exactly where would CentOS and the other clones be without Red Hat's continued operations.
lee@leegarner.com wrote:
I think that's a bit short-sighted. Exactly where would CentOS and the other clones be without Red Hat's continued operations.
If Red Hat ceased to exist, another group would step up and meet the needs of the folks that Red Hat abandoned. Red Hat is as dependent on Fedora users and groups like Centos as anyone is on them.
The community doesn't owe Red Hat anything. They are only doing what they are required to do by the GPL. The wisdom of the GPL has become crystal clear in my mind over the past few days. If the linux kernel and the multitude of other software on which Red Hat depends (and obtains without cost) were licensed under a BSD-style license, we could be in a very different (and much worse) situation today.
Dave Thompson The University of Wisconsin - Madison
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:14:10 -0600, David Thompson wrote:
The community doesn't owe Red Hat anything. They are only doing what they are required to do by the GPL.
Actually, not! SuSE operates under the same GPL. Their source is available, but you do not have the right to modify it or redistribute it. That's the difference between RH and SuSE.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Syv Ritch wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:14:10 -0600, David Thompson wrote:
The community doesn't owe Red Hat anything. They are only doing what they are required to do by the GPL.
Actually, not! SuSE operates under the same GPL. Their source is available, but you do not have the right to modify it or redistribute it. That's the difference between RH and SuSE.
Actually, I think the GPL mentions that not only the sources should be available, but in case of distributing executables, also the information to be able to produce the same results. (In this case the SPEC files)
I think RMS foresaw how people could abuse the system. But I don't know how Novell/SuSE is complying to this.
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
Dag Wieers wrote:
Actually, I think the GPL mentions that not only the sources should be available, but in case of distributing executables, also the information to be able to produce the same results. (In this case the SPEC files)
I think RMS foresaw how people could abuse the system. But I don't know how Novell/SuSE is complying to this.
Such as: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
-Mike
---------- Original Message ----------- From: Syv Ritch centos@911networks.com To: CentOS discussion and information list centos@caosity.org, CentOS discussion and information list centos@caosity.org Sent: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:10:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [Centos] Red Hat Legal Targets www.centos.org website content
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:14:10 -0600, David Thompson wrote:
The community doesn't owe Red Hat anything. They are only doing what they are required to do by the GPL.
Actually, not! SuSE operates under the same GPL. Their source is available, but you do not have the right to modify it or redistribute it. That's the difference between RH and SuSE.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
------- End of Original Message -------
I don't believe that is right about SuSe. You can redistribute their source just as they do. They differ from RH in that I can buy a boxed set and install it on more than one PC legally. Any support for it would only be for 1 PC.<br>
-- <<JAV>>
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Joe Polk wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:14:10 -0600, David Thompson wrote:
The community doesn't owe Red Hat anything. They are only doing what they are required to do by the GPL.
Actually, not! SuSE operates under the same GPL. Their source is available, but you do not have the right to modify it or redistribute it. That's the difference between RH and SuSE.
I don't believe that is right about SuSe. You can redistribute their source just as they do. They differ from RH in that I can buy a boxed set and install it on more than one PC legally. Any support for it would only be for 1 PC.<br>
I'm interested. Where do you sign something that forbids this ? As far as I know the GPL specifically forbids to add restrictions to GPLed software.
It could mean that you could be thrown out of Red Hat's service and support framework. (Because that's what you actually bought) But as far as using the obtained GPL software goes, I think you have a right te use that without added restrictions.
Also not all the software bundled is GPL, so it is a bit more complex than this :) And I'm sure that the general advice is, talk to your lawyer. IANAL
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 14:10 -0800, Syv Ritch wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:14:10 -0600, David Thompson wrote:
The community doesn't owe Red Hat anything. They are only doing what they are required to do by the GPL.
Actually, not! SuSE operates under the same GPL. Their source is available, but you do not have the right to modify it or redistribute it. That's the difference between RH and SuSE.
Umm the only thing I believe that had that restriction was YAST ... under the GPL it's not possible to put restrictions on redistributing the source. Some interpretations of the GPL would require that RedHat give out the source code for any package they have distributed to anybody that wants it for a period of time.
One thing to remember is not all of RHEL is GPL, some of it is BSD, Apache, Artistic and other licenses that have other terms on redistribution of modifications. So RedHat is being "nice" by following the stricter license of the GPL for everything.
I'm still waiting to find out how "community" minded RedHat is with opening up Netscape Directory Server that they purchased from AOL ... if they open up the majority of it like SUN did with OpenOffice.org then I'll be happier with then. If they keep it closed I'll have to put them in the less community friendly column.
Paul
lee@leegarner.com wrote:
They would really prefer that you cease operations, discontinue your product, and force everyone to purchase their (overpriced) products.
"Overpriced" is subjective. My company has happily standardized on RHEL.
When there is no option which does not include their "support", which I can obtain locally at far better prices, and with far, far better response times, I consider it overpriced. It is subjective.
I no longer recommend that company to my clients for any Linux work, because they are completely out of touch with the Linux movement, and Linux' core values. I now happily recommend any of their competitors when my clients ask me what distros. I do recommend CentOS for most everyone.
I think that's a bit short-sighted. Exactly where would CentOS and the other clones be without Red Hat's continued operations.
And would Red Hat be "the standard linux distribution" without the people who promoted their brand because it was reasonably priced at $79 per package, and who have now been abandoned? Probably not...
CentOS will continue, even if RedHat is purchased by Microsoft and absorbed by the borg...
-Scott
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:17:41 -0500, Scott Sharkey ssharkey@linuxunlimited.com wrote:
CentOS will continue, even if RedHat is purchased by Microsoft and absorbed by the borg...
Several people have said this on this thread.
I don't know if it's true. Maintaining CentOS is (I over-simplify) rebuilding RH's SRPMs.
Without the SRPMs, it takes a lot of people to backport patch all the packages, compile, test/QA,... It's what the Fedora Legacy project is currently doing and it is a lot of work for a lot of people. Work very different in nature from the "simple" rebuilding required to maintain CentOS.
Please don't think I'm taking credit away from the CentOS maintainers. My point is simply that there is no guarantee that this community would adapt and become another Fedora Legacy. After all, we'd all be using RHL and FC with FL updates if that was we wanted. We're here because we want to use RHEL w/o RH. Very different crowd and needs.
Francois
hi all,
I'm a newcomer to CentOS but not to linux and open source. I have a point of view as a user, as a developer and as an owner of a little llc in Hungary.
I don't know if it's true. Maintaining CentOS is (I over-simplify)
rebuilding RH's SRPMs.
Without the SRPMs, it takes a lot of people to backport patch all the packages, compile, test/QA,... It's what the Fedora Legacy project is currently doing and it is a lot of work for a lot of people. Work very different in nature from the "simple" rebuilding required to maintain CentOS.
I think this guy has the point. If RedHat would just satisfy the requirements of GPL that would be enough that they snail mail their patches. Or put a printed edition into a library somewhere in the states or - the most extreme case and disputable - they should tell they got the money for support and not the modification and not redistribute the patches. On the other hand the guy misses the point that CentOS is able to survive if RH doesn't release SRPMS. It would be harder but not impossible.
To be clear: yes, I'm sure half of the management of RH just gives back the code because they have to. BUT. What do you think why the big players in industry like HP, Intel, IBM etc. support linux kernel developement and other open source projjects? Just because they are interested in having another platform not just Windows and Solaris and there's a hype and request from users. But they have to be sure they can give support. The big players and big companies rely on official support. That's where RedHat comes into the scene. They make the relationship with comapanies like oracle, building test centers, do a lot of Q/A and pay lots of of develepoers. And what a surprise: lot of IT managers wouldn't support their effort with as less money as 100$/year/system. Which would be more than enough if all the companies who would like to use RHEL just pay this amount of money. So RedHat wants to make sure they can pay the developers and of course make a profit, too. That's the way goes. RedHat takes the way of "ransom support" - get it whether you want or not - but that's much more honest than other companies strategy and pricing. If there's no RHEL there's no patches and 5 years of continous support and security updates - a must for the middle sized companies with serious IT management and infrastructure. There would be no CentOS, WhiteBox, TaoLinux etc.
What I dislike in this situation is that they not allow to use the RedHat and RHEL expression if the website just says that CentOS isn't related to RedHat and "just" rebuild the sources.
Thanks your attention, Ago
Scott Sharkey wrote: [snip]
I no longer recommend that company to my clients for any Linux work, because they are completely out of touch with the Linux movement, and Linux' core values. I now happily recommend any of their competitors when my clients ask me what distros. I do recommend CentOS for most everyone.
Hi Scott.
I'm not sure that I'd be willing to recommend CentOS to anyone if I am at the same time bashing the very company who makes it possible. I happen to like Red Hat and use not only RHEL, but Fedora and CentOS -- both of which obtain sustenance from the bosom of Red Hat.
Why don't you recommend a recompilation of SuSE, instead? Oh, I forgot. There isn't one (at least of which I am aware).
BK
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 12:33, Barry L. Kline wrote:
I'm not sure that I'd be willing to recommend CentOS to anyone if I am at the same time bashing the very company who makes it possible. I happen to like Red Hat and use not only RHEL, but Fedora and CentOS -- both of which obtain sustenance from the bosom of Red Hat.
It seems like the previously good folk at Redhat are playing hardball with the CentOS community. It sure feels like that to me.
Does CentOS depend on RHEL and FC? In some sense, probably yes. But the blade cuts both ways, and RH/FC get help from the CentOS community.
The $64K question is: What would the CentOS community do without Redhat? Would our GNU/Linux hosts shrivel up and die? I don't think so. Let Redhat mount whatever FUD campaign they think is necessary from their corporate perspective. We'll adapt and survive.
-- TT
For many years I have run the primary Redhat Mirror server in New Zealand, about seven years ago I registered redhat.co.nz (ftp.redhat.co.nz still works) and this is what most people used to access the site (that is what was listed on the Redhat mirror list on their website). about 3 years ago all of a sudden Redhat started jumping up and down saying that (understandably) I couldn't use their trademark so I changed it to something else. They were really quite nice about it in a gruff sort of way (ok, they gave me tshirts and hats) and I haven't heard from them since. I would not assume because they want to make sure they are the only ones authorising the use of their trademarks that they have any more sinister intentions.
On legal grounds they have to object. If not they lose the rights to the trademark if they ever need to go to court to fight a case. Their lawyers would be the one jumping up and down and for good reason. They have to keep their trademark (or lose the rights to it by simply not objecting others usage of it)
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@caosity.org [mailto:centos-bounces@caosity.org] On Behalf Of Tony Wicks Sent: 15 February 2005 02:01 To: CentOS discussion and information list Subject: Re: [Centos] Red Hat Legal Targets www.centos.org website content
For many years I have run the primary Redhat Mirror server in New Zealand, about seven years ago I registered redhat.co.nz (ftp.redhat.co.nz still works) and this is what most people used to access the site (that is what was listed on the Redhat mirror list on their website). about 3 years ago all of a sudden Redhat started jumping up and down saying that (understandably) I couldn't use their trademark so I changed it to something else. They were really quite nice about it in a gruff sort of way (ok, they gave me tshirts and hats) and I haven't heard from them since. I would not assume because they want to make sure they are the only ones authorising the use of their trademarks that they have any more sinister intentions. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
IMNSHO this has nothing to do with protecting one's trademark. Read their own site: http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/page3.html
This is a bullying tactic at best. The company I work for has had to enforce our trademark. We sure never did so in regards to linking back to our site or in referencing our trademark by derivatives applications that used our code though. That's a joke. Using a trademark in a domain name is different then saying "I'm derived from Red Hat."
Business has 0 to do with loyalty when billions of dollars are at stake. "We" owe them nothing outside of what had been done prior to this idiotic move by their lawyers.
I don't think their demands should be met, and I would refuse if it were me.
A
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@caosity.org [mailto:centos-bounces@caosity.org] On Behalf Of Ho Chaw Ming Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 1:10 PM To: 'CentOS discussion and information list' Subject: RE: [Centos] Red Hat Legal Targets www.centos.org website content
On legal grounds they have to object. If not they lose the rights to the trademark if they ever need to go to court to fight a case. Their lawyers would be the one jumping up and down and for good reason. They have to keep their trademark (or lose the rights to it by simply not objecting others usage of it)
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@caosity.org [mailto:centos-bounces@caosity.org] On Behalf Of Tony Wicks Sent: 15 February 2005 02:01 To: CentOS discussion and information list Subject: Re: [Centos] Red Hat Legal Targets www.centos.org website content
For many years I have run the primary Redhat Mirror server in New Zealand, about seven years ago I registered redhat.co.nz (ftp.redhat.co.nz still works) and this is what most people used to access the site (that is what was listed on the Redhat mirror list on their website). about 3 years ago all of a sudden Redhat started jumping up and down saying that (understandably) I couldn't use their trademark so I changed it to something else. They were really quite nice about it in a gruff sort of way (ok, they gave me tshirts and hats) and I haven't heard from them since. I would not assume because they want to make sure they are the only ones authorising the use of their trademarks that they have any more sinister intentions. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Ho Chaw Ming wrote:
On legal grounds they have to object. If not they lose the rights to the trademark if they ever need to go to court to fight a case. Their lawyers would be the one jumping up and down and for good reason. They have to keep their trademark (or lose the rights to it by simply not objecting others usage of it)
I disagree. If they were only interested in protecting their trademark, they wouldn't have thrown in that crazy line about not linking to their website without permission.
I don't get it. Red Hat has been pissing off their community for about a year now. Would somebody care to explain to me how that makes good business sense?
I guess that Microsoft is ecstatic. If Red Hat pisses off enough customers, it weakens linux as a whole.
Just my $0.02,
Ben
On legal grounds they have to object. If not they lose the rights to the trademark if they ever need to go to court to fight a case. Their lawyers would be the one jumping up and down and for good reason. They have to keep their trademark (or lose the rights to it by simply not objecting others usage of it)
True, if that's what they were doing. Look, this is a legal tactic. It amounts to having your friend who's a lawyer call your mechanic because you have a gripe and want your $100 bill reduced. They know CentOS will not go to court over this. So this is a way to get them to back off. But CentOS isn't doing anything wrong or illegal. For that reason, they should ignore this but I understand why they can't take the risk. Defending RH's actions is just futile. I, for one, am very disappointed. I can hope bad press will help but they seem to not really give a fsck.
-- <<JAV>>
---------- Original Message -----------
I'm not sure that I'd be willing to recommend CentOS to anyone if I am at the same time bashing the very company who makes it possible. I happen to like Red Hat and use not only RHEL, but Fedora and CentOS -- both of which obtain sustenance from the bosom of Red Hat.
Why don't you recommend a recompilation of SuSE, instead? Oh, I forgot. There isn't one (at least of which I am aware).
BK _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
------- End of Original Message -------
I disagree. I have no problem bashing RH especially due to this. This is rediculous. RH has adopted nearly all of the tactics that pitched the community against Microsoft. I contend that they only distribute source because they have to. They may very well 'give' to the community but they get a lot too. This response was sent by their lawyers. I would imagine that if heat comes down, they can back away and say, "well legal got a little aggressive blah blah blah" and simply retract. But if it works and it keeps people from adopting Centos or others from saying, "This distro is based on RH" then hey, they get some cake. I stopped sending RH money because they basically told end users, "Unless you're coming with a huge contract go run Fedora." Fine, I'll take my money elsewhere. I went to SuSe. I came to CentOS because I like the update model and I like RH's code. As a company, they are becoming unethical and beasty. I have no time for that. It's tactics like this that make me almost wish they'd go belly up. They need the chip knocked off their shoulder. You can make money without becoming an ass about it. I'm becoming more convinced they are looking for more respect from Sun and Microsoft than from their customers. And if you think they're concerned about what the community thinks, you're nuts. I think they feel they have enough developers that the community is becoming a nuesance to them. They adhere to the GPL only to the letter. If they weren't "trapped" by it, they'd adopted a new license in a heartbeat. In short, they seem to be a blend of Caldera and Microsoft. Don't get me wrong, I know CentOS depends on their source, but don't go defending them as a company. They would hold that back if they could.
-- <<JAV>>
Scott Sharkey wrote:
They would really prefer that you cease operations, discontinue your product, and force everyone to purchase their (overpriced) products. Unfortunately, for them, the GPL prevents them from actually trying to make that happen, so they resort to vague threats, and threats they know are unenforceable (like restricting linking - which I seriously doubt would hold up in any court anywhere, since they have "published" this info into a public forum (the internet)). They are hoping you will think it's more trouble to comply, and fold your shop.
Actually, I just thought of one more thing. Red Hat is constrained not only by the GPL, but by the US Legal system too. We're bashing them for attempting to enforce their trademark when in actuality, they are required to do so by the legal system.
IANAL (thankfully) but IIRC, for one to maintain a copyright or trademark you must actively pursue anyone who infringes on it. You lose your trademark protection if you go after someone who uses the trademark (say, Microsoft decides to release Red Hat Windows) and they can prove that you had not gone after others who had done the same.
So, like it or not, Red Hat has little choice.
On top of that, they are being good GPL citizens by releasing their SRC rpms -- which they are not required to do. From what I understand of the GPL, they are required to release the source code of anything they build on top of GPL software. But they are not required to make it relatively painless to generate a virtual clone of their product -- e.g. source RPMs.
If the only thing that CentOS has to do to satisfy RH legal is to remove the offending trademark infringements, then that's fine. My only concern is their request to remove links. There's a grey area that would require some discussion.
BK
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 12:44 -0500, Barry L. Kline wrote:
IANAL (thankfully) but IIRC, for one to maintain a copyright or trademark you must actively pursue anyone who infringes on it. You lose your trademark protection if you go after someone who uses the trademark (say, Microsoft decides to release Red Hat Windows) and they can prove that you had not gone after others who had done the same.
You are correct about the fact that trademarks need to be defended, copyright does not have to be defended for it to be valid you can wait 20 years to defend your copyright even if you are aware of the violations and not have it effect copyright. The only thing it may effect is your ability to get statutory damages.
So, like it or not, Red Hat has little choice.
On top of that, they are being good GPL citizens by releasing their SRC rpms -- which they are not required to do. From what I understand of the GPL, they are required to release the source code of anything they build on top of GPL software. But they are not required to make it relatively painless to generate a virtual clone of their product -- e.g. source RPMs.
If the only thing that CentOS has to do to satisfy RH legal is to remove the offending trademark infringements, then that's fine. My only concern is their request to remove links. There's a grey area that would require some discussion.
Linking has been shown under US federal law to be legal from all the cases I've heard of.
Also trademarks are not black & white ... if a trademark term is being used descriptively or for comparison it is legal from what I understand. This is why you can write reviews of products, even negative reviews, and the owner of the mark can't force you to remove their marks. Same goes for commercials comparing your product to a competitors, allowing you to use their marks for the comparison (except in France from what I understand).
The standard dislaimer IANAL and TINLA applies.
Paul
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 06:59 -0600, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
Not necessarily. The large corporations pay the search engines to ensure that they come up higher on the response lists.
I understand that RedHat is trying to protect their income. After all, why pay for RHEL if CentOS is free? I basically have two questions that I need to find a good IP attorney to clarify for me:
You buy RHEL because you want/need support ... simple as that.
- If CentOS is, in fact, a re-compile clone of RHEL with RH's
permission (as per the GPL), then how can they legally require that CentOS not disclose that fact? 2) Is it legal to restrict others from linking to your website?
For #2 it's been my understanding that linking to a website is always allow http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35306,00.html
I think RH's going a bit overboard, as there really was no confusion as to whether or not RH was supporting CentOS.
I agree, I'm becomming a frustrated with them and this issue.
Paul
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Paul wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 06:59 -0600, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
- If CentOS is, in fact, a re-compile clone of RHEL with RH's
permission (as per the GPL), then how can they legally require that CentOS not disclose that fact? 2) Is it legal to restrict others from linking to your website?
For #2 it's been my understanding that linking to a website is always allow http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35306,00.html
I think the issue here might be the fact that Red Hat is mentioned together with links to the Red Hat site in such a way people might be misled into thinking CentOS is endorsed by Red Hat or CentOS is the same as RHEL.
Now, it would not surprise me if that message got lost in translation and ended up being written as it is in legalese.
It's hard to discuss this without knowing what happened exactly after the letter was received, but I would have send out a reply asking for concrete examples and rationale. It makes common sense that if you receive a message that (partly) does not make sense to you, you ask for clarification.
It's in everybody's best interest to get rid of any confusion the website might give. We do not want people to believe that CentOS is something else.
Let's not focus on one mistake and let everybody do their job and clear out the mess. I don't think there were ill intentions being used here, except maybe the guy who posted this on Slashdot.
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:12:19PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Paul wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 06:59 -0600, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
- If CentOS is, in fact, a re-compile clone of RHEL with RH's
permission (as per the GPL), then how can they legally require that CentOS not disclose that fact? 2) Is it legal to restrict others from linking to your website?
<SNIP>
Ok, as someone mentioned once, didn't Mandrake "steal" a version of Red Hat to create their distro? Didn't SuSE in the far distant past do the same? Do they have to mention that it's built from redhat source?
I think the only issue we need to worry about on the web site is the documentation, which says Red Hat all over it, primarily because it's their documentation.
So, maybe that's what they're so peeved about. I was thinking that a rewrite of the support documentation for CentOS might not be a bad idea. I know there's a lot missing from the RHEL docs (things like settings in /etc/sysconfig; not all of us utilize their graphical tools for configuration).
Anyone interested in an improved documentation project for CentOS? We might be able to do a better job than they have, using their docs as a reference/bibliographical note and nothing more.
I think the issue here might be the fact that Red Hat is mentioned together with links to the Red Hat site in such a way people might be misled into thinking CentOS is endorsed by Red Hat or CentOS is the same as RHEL.
That's what I had assumed the issue was.
Now, it would not surprise me if that message got lost in translation and ended up being written as it is in legalese.
It's hard to discuss this without knowing what happened exactly after the letter was received, but I would have send out a reply asking for concrete examples and rationale. It makes common sense that if you receive a message that (partly) does not make sense to you, you ask for clarification.
Agreed.
It's in everybody's best interest to get rid of any confusion the website might give. We do not want people to believe that CentOS is something else.
What exactly IS CentOS? The folks working on the project have been nice enough to rebuild SRPMS from RHEL and give them some good testing. They provide timely updates for their software, even rolling them into new release images when the update count gets high enough (which is why RH does Updates Releases I think). The CentOS folks also provide additional support for their software, complete with their own bug tracking system (Bugzilla) and support network: IRC, mailing lists, forums, you name it... We do lack a toll free phone number and mailing address. :-)
So, again, I mention the fact that the software itself may be based on RHEL, but it's become something more. Maybe we really don't have to mention RHEL anymore. Perhaps it is merely a footnote, and if we've been directed by RH to not state it, then we're free and clear to not do so.
Let's not focus on one mistake and let everybody do their job and clear out the mess. I don't think there were ill intentions being used here, except maybe the guy who posted this on Slashdot.
Yip. I'm glad to see that Slashdot posters are as reliable as ever to spread sensationalism.
So, after we get this resolved, any ideas on making CentOS more "ours"?
Just my 2 shillings worth...
Sincerely,
Shawn M. Jones
smj@littleprojects.org wrote:
Anyone interested in an improved documentation project for CentOS? We might be able to do a better job than they have, using their docs as a reference/bibliographical note and nothing more.
There is heaps missing from the RH docs. Lets get it into a WIKI or something. I would help out every time I have to figure something out.
John.
On Tuesday, 15 February 2005, at 10:22:09 (+1100), John Newbigin wrote:
There is heaps missing from the RH docs. Lets get it into a WIKI or something. I would help out every time I have to figure something out.
Those wishing to contribute such documents are encouraged to use https://wiki.caosity.org/ for this purpose.
Michael
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, John Newbigin wrote:
smj@littleprojects.org wrote:
Anyone interested in an improved documentation project for CentOS? We might be able to do a better job than they have, using their docs as a reference/bibliographical note and nothing more.
There is heaps missing from the RH docs. Lets get it into a WIKI or something. I would help out every time I have to figure something out.
I added some structure to the wiki yesterday. Feel free to improve on that. I think a FAQ would be more appropriate to spend time on (especially something explaining about the trademark issues and the recent commotion).
General documentation is much harder in the sense that a good structure defines everything. Good educational documentation is much harder than it appears.
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 18:07 -0500, smj@littleprojects.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:12:19PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
It's in everybody's best interest to get rid of any confusion the website might give. We do not want people to believe that CentOS is something else.
What exactly IS CentOS? The folks working on the project have been nice enough to rebuild SRPMS from RHEL and give them some good testing. They provide timely updates for their software, even rolling them into new release images when the update count gets high enough (which is why RH does Updates Releases I think). The CentOS folks also provide additional support for their software, complete with their own bug tracking system (Bugzilla) and support network: IRC, mailing lists, forums, you name it... We do lack a toll free phone number and mailing address. :-)
shouldn't CentOS be a temporary step to cAos ?
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:55:10 -0200, Lauro L. A. Whately whately@lcp.coppe.ufrj.br wrote:
shouldn't CentOS be a temporary step to cAos ?
Not for me. Not for lots of people.
Greg
-
ago＠lsc.hu -
Andrew Sawyers -
Barry L. Kline -
Benjamin J. Weiss -
Dag Wieers -
David Thompson -
donavan nelson -
Forrest Samuels -
Francois Caen -
Greg Knaddison -
Ho Chaw Ming -
Joe Polk -
John Newbigin -
Lauro L. A. Whately -
lee＠leegarner.com -
Matt Shields -
Michael Best -
Michael Jennings -
Paul -
Scott Sharkey -
smj＠littleprojects.org -
Syv Ritch -
Tom Scott -
Tony Wicks