3 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoIt 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 agoCan you use RHEL's binaries in a derived product?
- mjg59 11y agoYes. 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 agoIn 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?