Leonard,
Your question, and indeed most of the comments in this thread, are based on an assumption. That assumption is that there is value for RedHat in having people know that the $1.95 CD they bought from the local street vendor has "RedHat Linux" on the CD. I would assert that this assumption has very low probability of being true, that in fact that it is more likely that such knowledge is a liability to RedHat. I see no mechanism under which that knowledge can add value to RedHat, but it is quite easy to see how that knowledge leads to additional load on their support systems. Yes, they can tell the person on the phone that the Linux they bought at the local flea market is not supported by RedHat, but while doing so it has cost the company a couple of dollars for the amortized cost of the support infrastructure and the time of the technician who took the call. RedHat is a business and they exist, suprisingly, to make money (the raison d'etre for all businesses). They make money by selling support, so the only way RH will make money when Joe Flea sells his press of their distro on CD is if the amount of support revenue that it engenders for RH is more than the cost of telling all those who bought his CD's that they do not get free support and please get off the phone. Is someone who paid $4 for a CD of Linux going to pay $50 or $75 to RedHat for a support incident? Not likely. At the end of the day, the owners of RedHat, those who own RedHat stock, will demand that the company take measures to make money and ensure that they are not bleeding it away on phone support for El Cheapo Linux. And that is all RedHat is doing by reminding those who sell the cheap CD's that the policy is, and always has been, that they are free to redistribute the product but they cannot call it "RedHat Linux". <Disclaimer mode> I do hold a very small block of RedHat stock, on which, parenthetically, I am losing money as are most RH shareholders. As an owner of RH stock I think they are doing the right thing in protecting their assets and trying to make a buck. </disclaimer mode>. - rick warner - On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
