4 ms·

Link to Red Hat's policy (see section on publishing modified software on page 5): https://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf https://www.redhat.

Link to Red Hat's policy (see section on publishing modified software on page 5): https://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf https://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf I'm not an expert, but to be honest this sounds pretty similar to what Garrett is complaining about: "You may not name or brand your product “Red Hat” or use the Red Hat trademarks in any way, either on your product or in related advertising." "You must use a different trademark for your product that will not cause confusion with the trademarks of Red Hat, will not indicate or imply that your product originates from or is sponsored or approved by Red Hat, and which otherwise complies with applicable trademark laws." "You may not state that your product contains Red Hat Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux."

mjg59 11y ago
Later on the same page they tell you what you have to do to meet those conditions. The fact that Canonical won't do that is what I'm unhappy about.
- felipeerias 11y ago
  Are you referring to point D, "modify the files identified as REDHAT-LOGOS and ANACONDA-IMAGES"? Because that doesn't seem sufficient to fully comply with all of the previous points. I do agree that Canonical haven't been clear enough on this issue but, in my humble opinion, their policies don't seem all that different from Red Hat's.
  - mjg59 11y ago
    It complies with the changes you have to make in the software. You still have to deal with the use of trademark around it, such as the names you associate with the software when you sell it. If you make those changes and then don't claim that what you're selling is RHEL or stick any Red Hat logos on your website, Red Hat won't sue you. It's unclear whether or not that's sufficient for Canonical to be happy.
    - felipeerias 11y ago
      Can you use RHEL's binaries in a derived product?
      - mjg59 11y ago
        Yes. The Red Hat support contract indicates that sharing RHEL binaries with someone else will result in Red Hat terminating support for you (something that I find incredibly offensive and objectionable), but if you give the binaries to someone else then they can give them to anybody else they want to.
        felipeerias 11y ago
        In other words, there is no way for you to get continued access to Red Hat's binaries while redistributing them as part of a derived product. So the only sustainable strategy is to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. And if you do that, you must remember to remove and replace the trademarks because you are not allowed to use the Red Hat trademarks in any way on your product. So the difference boils down to Red Hat clarifying what that requires, while Canonical has remained intentionally ambiguous. Is that right?

mjg59 11y ago

Later on the same page they tell you what you have to do to meet those conditions. The fact that Canonical won't do that is what I'm unhappy about.

felipeerias 11y ago
Are you referring to point D, "modify the files identified as REDHAT-LOGOS and ANACONDA-IMAGES"? Because that doesn't seem sufficient to fully comply with all of the previous points. I do agree that Canonical haven't been clear enough on this issue but, in my humble opinion, their policies don't seem all that different from Red Hat's.
- mjg59 11y ago
  It complies with the changes you have to make in the software. You still have to deal with the use of trademark around it, such as the names you associate with the software when you sell it. If you make those changes and then don't claim that what you're selling is RHEL or stick any Red Hat logos on your website, Red Hat won't sue you. It's unclear whether or not that's sufficient for Canonical to be happy.
  - felipeerias 11y ago
    Can you use RHEL's binaries in a derived product?
    - mjg59 11y ago
      Yes. The Red Hat support contract indicates that sharing RHEL binaries with someone else will result in Red Hat terminating support for you (something that I find incredibly offensive and objectionable), but if you give the binaries to someone else then they can give them to anybody else they want to.
      - felipeerias 11y ago
        In other words, there is no way for you to get continued access to Red Hat's binaries while redistributing them as part of a derived product. So the only sustainable strategy is to recompile the source code to create your own binaries. And if you do that, you must remember to remove and replace the trademarks because you are not allowed to use the Red Hat trademarks in any way on your product. So the difference boils down to Red Hat clarifying what that requires, while Canonical has remained intentionally ambiguous. Is that right?