On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 18:12 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 17:55, Jim Perrin wrote: > > > > XXX brand of YYY > > > where YYY was a generic term then they could tell they had what > > > they wanted either way. > > > > > > As Johnny said, we've been asked not to use certain trademarked items, > > and I don't really see any reason to go against that right now whether > > or not we're "technically" correct in doing so. There are plenty of > > other "open source" distributions like mandriva and suse, where > > rebuilding the corporate or EL version is nearly impossible, if not > > outright prohibited by the license agreement. RH supports the > > community as much as anyone else, and we do use their source packages, > > so if they say "we'd appreciate you not doing that" it's a reasonable > > thing. Add 2-3 lines of text manually, or bite the hand that feeds > > you. Not really a tough call for me. I agree 100% ... the upstream provider is extremely forthcoming with their GPL compliance. They are doing much more than is required by the GPL with respect to the way they distribute their SOURCES ... and the new Fedora Project is also extremely open. That is not to say that we will just totally roll over on every single suggestion ... see the front page of CentOS.org for an example of how that is not happening. That said, CentOS does respect the trademarks and copyrights of others, and we will meet all reasonable requests by anyone. > > Of course, but it would be nice if 3rd party app packagers > started asking how to detect the OS compatibility without > referencing a brand name with the danger of letting it become > generic. I also agree with this ... which is why we often ask FOSS companies to include support for CentOS directly. Many programs are doing that including Webmin, The GNU Telephony stack, Asterisk, Ensim, Qmail- Toaster, Virtuozzo, Plesk, cPanel ... and many, many more. As paying customers of other programs continue to demand CentOS support, that list will continue to grow. We are already growing unbelievably in the webserver market: http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=109 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060110/9a6c29da/attachment-0005.sig>