On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 16:18, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On 2/22/06, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Then I'd suggest you not use it as an argument to justify your position. > > Because it doesn't. > > Reading comprehension for the win. I said "regardless of how *legal* > it is". Meaning: I do not care that CentOS is in compliance with a > legal requirement to remove trademark information, I do not care that > they are breaking no laws, infringing on no copyrights. I care that > they pass off Red Hat's work as their own product. In fact, they were > illegally using the Red Hat name on their website to encourage (one > could argue inform) users to download the software in lieu of using > RHEL. Red Hat got some lawyers involved and CentOS stopped doing it. > > If this isn't as "abundantly clear" to you, then I simply can't > educate you or you're being deliberately obtuse to try and prove a > point (that is irrelavent to what I'm saying). No, it's not clear. First you complain about them removing the tradmarks, then continue with a complaint about when they tried to give some credit. Which is it you'd prefer? They were never pretending to 'be' RedHat but they did try to describe the origin and legal status of the product. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
