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. -- Paul. England, EU. Our systems are exclusively Centos. No Micro$oft Windoze here.
