CentOS - Feb 2005 - Red Hat Legal Targets www.centos.org website content

To squelch the questions (related to the changing content on 
www.centos.org), I decided this needs to be published.

The CentOS Team has been contacted by representatives of Red Hat's hired 
legal team regarding the use of Red Hat Trademarks on www.centos.org. 
(Full Email follows.)  While the CentOS team feels we are using Red 
Hat's marks in a fair and legal manner, we have no choice but to 
eliminate the majority of the Red Hat marks that are being used on 
www.centos.org.

So over the next few days, we will be cleansing the CentOS website of 
Red Hat marks and/or possible marks.  If you encounter any errors please 
take a moment to point then out via a comment here or catch donavan in 
#centos-web on irc.freenode.net.

At this point and going forward the CentOS project is not in any 
jeopardy.  We have a strong group of committed developers and are 
growing like crazy.  CentOS 4 is just around the corner; the future is 
brighter than ever.

Read the rest here: 
http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=66

I like the new meta description tag:

"CentOS -- Community ENTerprise Operating System is a free rebuild of
source
packages freely available from  a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux
vendor."

I understand where Red Hat is coming from here but also find it very
frustrating that the CentOS team can not call it what it is, a Red Hat
Enterprise Linux compatible rebuild. From what I read on the trademark
guidelines page, they can't say Red Hat or RHEL anywhere for any reason.
Does this also mean you can't link to the location where you get the source
to build CentOS? Can you still link to Red Hat's Errata pages?

-Forrest

-----Original Message-----
From: centos-bounces at caosity.org [mailto:centos-bounces at caosity.org] On
Behalf Of donavan nelson
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 1:04 AM
To: centos at caosity.org; CentOS-devel
Subject: [Centos] Red Hat Legal Targets www.centos.org website content

To squelch the questions (related to the changing content on 
www.centos.org), I decided this needs to be published.

The CentOS Team has been contacted by representatives of Red Hat's hired 
legal team regarding the use of Red Hat Trademarks on www.centos.org. 
(Full Email follows.)  While the CentOS team feels we are using Red 
Hat's marks in a fair and legal manner, we have no choice but to 
eliminate the majority of the Red Hat marks that are being used on 
www.centos.org.

So over the next few days, we will be cleansing the CentOS website of 
Red Hat marks and/or possible marks.  If you encounter any errors please 
take a moment to point then out via a comment here or catch donavan in 
#centos-web on irc.freenode.net.

At this point and going forward the CentOS project is not in any 
jeopardy.  We have a strong group of committed developers and are 
growing like crazy.  CentOS 4 is just around the corner; the future is 
brighter than ever.

Read the rest here: 
http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=66
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS at caosity.org
http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Corporations cannot
directly pay google to elevate the relevancy of their pages/site in regular
search results, although they can certainly buy google adwords(which can be
expensive depending on the words bought) that appear in the "Sponsored
Links".</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Also, RH was upset not
only about the images/linkage, but also the embedded meta tags as mentioned in
the love letter from the lawyers. Meta tags are intended to give a relevancy
summary to those who bother to read them, typically web spiders. RH could
certainly take issue if someone was telling spiderbots that RH is the focus of
their pages/site. As a sidenote, meta tags generally are not what they used to
be in terms of building relevancy, but could be an academic point of contention
to use in growling at someone.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Benjamin
J. Weiss" <benjamin@birdvet.org></b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by:
centos-bounces@caosity.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">02/14/2005 06:59
AM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to
CentOS discussion and information list</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial">        </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">        To:       
CentOS discussion and information list <centos@caosity.org></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">        cc:       
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">        Subject:       
Re: [Centos] Red Hat Legal Targets www.centos.org website
content</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Paul wrote:<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>>On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 20:46 -0700,
Greg Knaddison wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
>>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:06:30 -0800, Francois Caen
<frcaen@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:33:24 -0500, Forrest Samuels<br>
>>><forrest@liquidcs.com> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>>Does this also mean you can't link to the location where you
get the source<br>
>>>>to build CentOS? Can you still link to Red Hat's Errata
pages?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>The answer to that is in the letter:<br>
>>><br>
>>>"Moreover, our client does not allow others to provide links to
our<br>
>>>client's web site without permission. "<br>
>>><br>
>>>Which is ludicrous.<br>
>>><br>
>>>And would have a funny side effect: if nobody linked to RH, they
would<br>
>>>disappear from Google  :)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>I imagine that RedHat has given permission to the search engines
and<br>
>>media and...everyone who they feel helps them by linking.<br>
>><br>
>>Though I agree, it is counter to the way that the web has
grown.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
>Actually since Google works based on the number of sites linking to
you<br>
>it would effect their ratings.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
Not necessarily.  The large corporations pay the search engines to<br>
ensure that they come up higher on the response lists.<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>I understand that RedHat is trying to
protect their income.  After all,<br>
why pay for RHEL if CentOS is free?  I basically have two questions
that<br>
I need to find a good IP attorney to clarify for me:<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>1) If CentOS is, in fact, a re-compile
clone of RHEL with RH's<br>
permission (as per the GPL), then how can they legally require that<br>
CentOS not disclose that fact?<br>
2) Is it legal to restrict others from linking to your website?<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>I think RH's going a bit overboard,
as there really was no confusion as<br>
to whether or not RH was supporting CentOS.<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>Ben<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CentOS mailing list<br>
CentOS@caosity.org<br>
http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos</tt></font>
<br>
<br>

Well this sure isn't going to help CentOS, someone blabbed to Slashdot
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/02/14/1255206.shtml?tid=110&tid=218

That's sure going to tick RedHat off.

-- 
Matt Shields
http://masnetworks.biz
http://sexydates4u.com
http://shieldslinux.com
http://shieldsmedia.com (currently under construction)
http://shieldsproductions.com (currently under construction)

Dag,

I think you are taking what RedHat Legal says too
literally.  Yes, they SAY this is about confusion, but
I do not think it is really about confusion.  This is
about their trademark rights (not covered by the GPL)
and what they can do to enhance their revenue flow --
make it harder for the public to know more about the
advantages of CentOS.  
> It's hard to discuss this without knowing what
happened exactly after 
> the 
> letter was received, but I would have send out a
reply asking for 
> concrete examples and rationale. 
So I think asking for concrete examples and rationale
are not likely to help, as asking for this will not
cause RedHat to back down from enfocing their
trademark rights -- because of the "real reasons".  

Rick



> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:12:19 +0100 (CET)
> From: Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com>
> Subject: Re: [Centos] Red Hat Legal Targets
www.centos.org website
> 	content
> To: CentOS discussion and information list
<centos at caosity.org>
> Message-ID:
<Pine.LNX.4.61.0502142101290.921 at horsea.3ti.be>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> 
> I think the issue here might be the fact that Red
Hat is mentioned 
> together with links to the Red Hat site in such a
way people might be 
> misled into thinking CentOS is endorsed by Red Hat
or CentOS is the 
> same 
> as RHEL.
> 
> Now, it would not surprise me if that message got
lost in translation 
> and 
> ended up being written as it is in legalese.
> 
> It's hard to discuss this without knowing what
happened exactly after 
> the 
> letter was received, but I would have send out a
reply asking for 
> concrete 
> examples and rationale. It makes common sense that
if you receive a 
> message that (partly) does not make sense to you,
you ask for 
> clarification.
> 
> It's in everybody's best interest to get rid of any
confusion the 
> website 
> might give. We do not want people to believe that
CentOS is something 
> else.
> 
> Let's not focus on one mistake and let everybody do
their job and clear 
> out the mess. I don't think there were ill
intentions being used here, 
> except maybe the guy who posted this on Slashdot.
> 
> --   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com, 
http://dag.wieers.com/   --
> [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and
unlimited power]
>

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:55:10 -0200, Lauro L. A. Whately
<whately at lcp.coppe.ufrj.br> wrote:
> 
> shouldn't CentOS be a temporary step to cAos ?
> 
Not for me.  Not for lots of people.
------------------------------------------------

Hello,

Well, I think so , too.

If CentOS changes its release policy,
I might use a completely different Linux distribution
like Debian.
A existance of a clone of a so-called prominent linux
distribution vendor is very important, I think.

Regards.