On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 17:05, Leonard Isham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps RH will sue the "RH clone" builders if they include a
> > > > redhat-release rpm or /etc/redhat-release file? It would seem rather silly.
> > >
> > > While it would be rather silly ... we have been told not to make redhat-
> > > release say Trademarked things :)
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > I'm not a lawyer, but I thought that if you wanted to keep your
> > trademark you had to keep it from being used as a generic term.
> > If third party apps must use the trademarked reference when
> > they really want to test for a generic compatible OS, they've
> > done something wrong. There was a time when the only way to
> > get aspirin was to ask for a trademarked brand name...
> >
>
> The applications only want to support the actual Prominent North
> American... or what ever we should call them.
Some applications might want to do that, but others may not.
If the description always said
XXX brand of YYY
where YYY was a generic term then they could tell they had what
they wanted either way.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com