Hi Rick,
> This has always been RedHat's position; RH Linux can be freely
> redistributed but cannot be called RedHat. Nothing new, just a reiteration of
> what has always been true.
So how would one identify such a copy as being RedHat Linux? I understand the
concern in regard to support, so I can understand RH asking redistributors to
make a statement that their copy is not an official RedHat release, that RH
will not provide service for it etc. But how the hell should CheapBytes call
such a copy? A Linux distribution from a well known vendor?
One more thing about redistribution: A *modified* copy of RedHat is not
RedHat, so I understand why Mandrake is not named RedHat. But an unsupported
copy of RedHat is still a copy of RedHat. How would you identify it otherwise?
Bye,
Leonard.
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
