[NTLUG:Discuss] redhat AS license?

[Chris Cox]

m m wrote:
> All:
> 
> what is the RedHat Advance Server license? it looks like under GNU license.
> If it is true, can NTLUG burn it and sale to the user at the meeting 
> like other destro linux?

Hee, hee.. although other folks like SUSE get hammered.. often by
Red Hat aficianados... for having some tools not licensed under
GPL... Red Hat(tm) has found an "acceptable" way of preventing free
distribution of their work.  They enforce their trademark.  AFAIK,
you can strip the Red Hat(tm) trademark (all occurrences in ALL files)
and then you can redistribute their stuff to your heart's content.

Can we legally sell/distribute RHAS(tm) (or any RHEL(tm))... I believe
the answer (without the trademark mod) is "no".

In particular... though the actual document escapes me at the moment,
Red Hat(tm) makes specific mention of their RHEL(tm) line in
one of their documents as NOT being redistributable... now that
was really back in the days of RH(tm) 9 and RHAS(tm)... and
I wan't too awful sure how they could allow free redistribution
(non commercial) of RH(tm) 9, but not of RHAS(tm) (???).  The
document... which may no longer exists, stated something
to the effect that you couldn't redistribute the enterprise
level products regardless of trademark exclusions.  (take this
with a grain of salt though... I can't find the right doc at
the moment)

 From Red Hat's(tm) http:www.redhat.com/licenses:

  2. Intellectual Property Rights. The Software and each of its
  components, including the source code, documentation, appearance,
  structure and organization are owned by Red Hat and others and are
  protected under copyright and other laws. Title to the Software
  and any component, or to any copy, modification, or merged portion
  shall remain with the aforementioned, subject to the applicable
  license. The "Red Hat" trademark and the "Shadowman" logo are
  registered trademarks of Red Hat in the U.S. and other countries.
  This agreement does not permit Customer to distribute the Software
  using Red Hat's trademarks.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Customer should read the information found at
  http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/
  before distributing a copy of the Software, regardless of whether
  it has been modified. If Customer makes a commercial redistribution
  of the Software, unless a separate agreement with Red Hat is executed
  or other permission granted, then Customer must modify any files
  identified as "REDHAT-LOGOS" and "anaconda-images" to remove all
  images containing the "Red Hat" trademark or the "Shadowman" logo.
  Merely deleting these files may corrupt the Software.

My favorite from the trademark link is:

  C. "Plays On Words" And Other Actions That May Cause Confusion
  Are Also Prohibited
  There is no connection between the words "Red Hat" and Linux-based
  computer software, products and services other than the association
  created by the Red Hat® brand of Linux-based products and services.
  Red Hat, Inc. has created this association by spending time and money
  to establish goodwill in its products, services and trademarks. As a
  result, you may not use the words "Red Hat" (together or individually),
  words with similar connotations or pronunciations, translations of
  those words, or other words that may cause confusion in the market as
  a trademark for your products. Some examples of prohibited uses include,
  but are not limited to, "Red Cap" Linux, "Sombrero Rojo" ("Red Hat"
  translated into Spanish) Linux, "Redd Hatte" Linux, "RH" Linux, and
  "Green Hat" Linux.

Which is why you can't buy Fedora Linux since anything having to
do with "hat" and Linux is 0wned by Red Hat(tm).  Red Hat(tm) was forced
to trademark Fedora(tm) due to their own trademark rules.

Also... this means that things like "White Hat Enterprise Linux" are
in violation.  Perhaps this is why they chose "White Box Enterprise
Linux"? http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/  The question is.. is that TOO
close too??

The sad fact is that Red Hat(tm), until very recently, has not been
enforcing strictly its trademark.. until July 2003, it was not
uncommon to see a Red hat product from Linux Central, etc.  I'm not
sure if those years of trademark abuse by so many would serve
to weaken Red Hat's(tm) case on its trademark.  IANAL... but it would
seem so to me.  I think there's a good case for loss of trademark.
Also, the original tradmark announcement in 2003 made distributors
just change the name on the web and on the CD... but a careful
look at the license... especially with the RHEL(tm) line, shows that
every occurence, every graphic within the software itself needs
to be changed.  Red Hat(tm) is gradually attempting to tighten
down the use of its trademark.  I'm sure if they had been more
forceful early on (in July 2003), it would have been a huge black
eye for Red Hat(tm).  Ahhh.. but with all of the business
resturcturing done lately by Red Hat(tm), it has served as a
very good shield/mask and allowed them to strengthen the enforcement
of their trademark without overt fanfare.

The big question:  Does Red Hat(tm) have the trademark rights
it is now (since July 2003) claiming??  IANAL... but I'd could
see a very good case for loss of trademark rights here.