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 at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]