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

[g whitley mott]

On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 20:18, RftD wrote:
> 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.

whenever these questions come up, if they deign to answer at all, the
answer is always of the form "refer to our trademarks guidelines"
(http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines), and "you
need to consult your own laywer".

a couple quotes from those guidelines:

        "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."
        
        "If you are a consumer of a product that contains the Red Hat
        trademark, and you believe it is not an official product of Red
        Hat, Inc., please bring it to our attention by contacting
        trademarks@redhat.com."

i don't think whitebox wants to go there.

fwiw, i concur that automated checking of files such as
/etc/redhat-release is bad practise.  the required packages or features
should be more directly confirmed.  developers of apps are likely to be
referring to this discussion, and should take heed.

-g
-- 
http://gnuleaf.net -- a new lease on life for stranded red hatters