"Leonard den Ottolander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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?
Right there, you're mentioning one thing which needs addressing. It's "Red Hat Linux". Not "RedHat Linux", not "Red Hat", not "RedHat" - it's "Red Hat Linux". Also, "Red Hat Linux" is more than just the bits - eg. when you buy a system machine with Red Hat Linux, you should know that it comes with support, manuals, RHN (possibly on certified hardware as well, I'm not sure). It shouldn't be confused with a system where someone just downloaded the bits and installed it on the system. Disclaimer: I don't make these policies -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
