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. jb
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...
On 2014-02-24, Brian Miller centos@fullnote.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 12:28 +0000, jb wrote:
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.
The actual text from what the original blog author cites (https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/):
"Use of the CentOS Marks to identify software that combines any portion of the CentOS software with any other software , unless the combined distribution is an official CentOS distribution. For example, you may not distribute a combination of the CentOS software with software released by the FooStack project under the name ''CentOS FooStack Distro''."
So the guidelines prohibit the use of CentOS *Marks*, not CentOS in his hypothetical scenario.
--keith
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Keith Keller < kkeller@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
On 2014-02-24, Brian Miller centos@fullnote.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 12:28 +0000, jb wrote:
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.
The actual text from what the original blog author cites (https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/):
"Use of the CentOS Marks to identify software that combines any portion of the CentOS software with any other software , unless the combined distribution is an official CentOS distribution. For example, you may not distribute a combination of the CentOS software with software released by the FooStack project under the name ''CentOS FooStack Distro''."
So the guidelines prohibit the use of CentOS *Marks*, not CentOS in his hypothetical scenario.
Derivative projects are probably in the same boat CentOS is ... removing the trademarked items.
ie: CentOS removes Red Hat trademarks (name, logo, whatever else)
That would be my expectation if anything at all were necessary.
Hopefully that author will consult the proper people and get a clear answer. Some people like to rant to rant ... it's rather sad because more time is wasted than actually doing something.
--keith
-- kkeller@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 02/24/2014 09:44 AM, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2014-02-24, Brian Miller centos@fullnote.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 12:28 +0000, jb wrote:
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.
The actual text from what the original blog author cites (https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/):
"Use of the CentOS Marks to identify software that combines any portion of the CentOS software with any other software , unless the combined distribution is an official CentOS distribution. For example, you may not distribute a combination of the CentOS software with software released by the FooStack project under the name ''CentOS FooStack Distro''."
So the guidelines prohibit the use of CentOS *Marks*, not CentOS in his hypothetical scenario.
Ding, Ding, Ding ... we have a winner.
The goal here is that the compilation can not say it is CentOS unless it really is CentOS. How it becomes CentOS is either because it is, in its entirety something that "CentOS officially released" or it is an approved SIG/variant in the program we have crated.
Without joining any SIGs, it could say any of the following: 1. That it is both "FooStack Program" ... and that it "Runs on CentOS" (if it "DOES NOT" change any of the CentOS packages).
OR
2. That it is both "FooStack Program" ... and that it is "Based on CentOS" (if it "DOES" change some of the CentOS packages).
But it can not say it is "CentOS FooStack"
================================================
If the same project actually joins a CentOS SIG and uses the centos,org SIG build and distribute infrastructure, then it could say (after approved by the board) that its variant spin is "CentOS FooStack Edition"
================================================
The goal here is that things can not claim that they are CentOS unless they are. Every major open source entity has these same restrictions. You can not build your own things, sign them with your own key and call it CentOS.
You also can not take a Debian spin ... add your own FooStack programs to it, then distribute it as Debian FooStack ... and for the same reasons, if you use their name you have to be official.
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.
-
Always Learning -
Brian Miller -
jb -
Johnny Hughes -
Keith Keller -
SilverTip257