[WBEL-devel] An "Issue" with WBEL (pun intended)

[RftD]

IANAL, but I believe you are correct.  In this case I think there is an 
exception to trademark and patent law where compatibility is concerned.  
So there probably could be a package named redhat-release-3AS-1 (we'd want 
to use the best one I'd think, assuming that we really are running the AS 
equiv kernel etc) that has the /etc/redhat-release file so long as it was 
for compatibility purposes.  Maybe even using a string like: 
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3AS (compatible; White Box Enterprise Linux 3) 
or somthing like that, if it would work.  If you really really want to 
know, you can probably ask tmlicense@redhat.com or trademarks@redhat.com 
and see what they say.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Johnny Hughes wrote:

> I don't think leaving an /etc/redhat-release would be a trademark issue 
> ... and after doing some more studying, it will be an issue with several
> other 3rd party applications.
> 
> Having just the file won't work though ... you need a file called
> /etc/redhat-release and it needs to be owned by a package named
> redhat-release-3ES-1,  redhat-release-3WS-1, or redhat-release-3AS-1.
> 
> Because the command frequently used by these apps to check the redhat
> version is:
> 
> rpm -qf --qf "%{VERSION}" /etc/redhat-release
> 
> In WBEL it returns an error (even if /etc/redhat-release is a link to
> /etc/whitebox-release), in RHEL 3 AS it returns 3AS.
> 
> In WBEL, the query:
> 
> rpm -qf --qf "%{VERSION}" /etc/whitebox-release
> 
> returns
> 
> 3WB
> 
> So I don't know how we want to handle the whole /etc/redhat-release
> issue ... but in 99% of the cases it will be a shell script that is
> looking for the info ... and we should be able to do any number of
> things to make it work on a case by case basis (if the program isn't
> modified by the owner to work with WBEL).
> 
> -Johnny Hughes
> On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 09:45, Simon J Mudd wrote:
> > grwm@gnuleaf.net (g whitley mott) writes:
> > 
> > > On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 10:52, Simon J Mudd wrote:
> > > > It would be better IMO that the redhat-release package mimicked the RH
> > > 
> > > unfortunately the Red Hat in /etc/redhat-release is a trademark, and has
> > > to go, for whitebox to avoid legal problems.
> > 
> > What exactly is the "trademark". The name? The fact that we call the
> > system RedHat Enterprise Linux (It doesn't)?
> > 
> > Having a package named redhat-release whose content says RedHat.... is
> > a trademark infringement? I don't think so. It's too easy to write an
> > rpm that does that.  Having /etc/issue saying that it is RHEL may be a
> > problem, unless underneath it says that the package(s) is/are modified
> > from the orginal sources....  Having a file called /etc/redhat-release
> > has the same problem?
> > 
> > i don't know. What is true is that we can't pretend that the OS is the
> > same thing as RHEL, but the white box website doesn't try to pretend
> > that.  It's also clear that the origin of WBL is RHEL.
> > 
> > Why have people looked at WBL and not Mandrake or something similar? i
> > think simply because they want a RH compatible OS at a cheaper price
> > and that only holds if WBL is close to indistinguishable from RHEL.
> > 
> > Perhaps my ideas here are flawed or others on this list have a
> > different point of view.
> > 
> > In any case forking another OS from RHEL just makes it more difficult
> > for application developers to build packages which install without
> > problems.
> > 
> > I've had a hardtime trying to support a Postfix RPM on different
> > various versions of RedHat, Yellowdog and Mandrake Linuxes and white
> > yes compiling from source solves all problems, a lot of people find it
> > convenient to install a pre-built binary package.  If you have to do
> > different things so it works on WBL it just won't get done.
> > 
> > Maybe one day I want to put Oracle on WBL or Sybase or another
> > commercial product and it would be nice to know that I can just
> > install it without worrying.  (Support is a different issue but on a
> > home machine this may not be an important issue.)
> > 
> > Simon
> > _______________________________________________
> > Whitebox-devel mailing list
> > Whitebox-devel@beau.org
> > http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Whitebox-devel mailing list
> Whitebox-devel@beau.org
> http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-devel
>