Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Trademark Issue Explained
Re: Amazon's concerns over fake Red Hat products.
Red Hat received a call last week from Amazon.com. They were getting complaints from Amazon customers who had purchased products through Amazon's auction site from sellers they believed to be selling products from Red Hat Inc. These products turned out to be CD-ROMS that consisted of free ftp downloads of Red Hat Linux, produced by independent vendors.
In order to avoid confusion and to protect our trademarks we explained our trademark policies to the Amazon staff. This is simply that you may download and resell Red Hat Linux. You should not, however, attempt intentionally or otherwise, to confuse buyers into thinking they were buying Official Red Hat Inc. products.
So we request that independent vendors call their product something other than Red Hat, and not use our trademarks or logos. They may -describe- their product as containing Red Hat Linux, but the product itself must have another name.
All of the reputable vendors of low-cost CD-ROMS that contain free ftp downloaded versions of Red Hat Linux follow this policy without our even requesting it. The current problem has arisen because of the large number of new, sometimes-less-than reputable suppliers who are using retail outlets like Amazon.com's auction site to trick customers into believing they were getting Official Red Hat Linux from Red Hat Inc. at a bargain price when in fact they were getting a cheap knock-off product. Red Hat depends on the open source software development model, and our customers rely on Red Hat Inc. to supply the benefits of this open source model to them. For this reason we publish every line of code we write under open source licenses, in effect we do not own any proprietary software. But we do own our trademarks.
The purpose of trademark law is to enable vendors to identify their products for their customers. If anyone could call their ketchup "Heinz Ketchup" consumers would have no idea when they were buying the product from the Heinz company, and when they were buying a cheap knock-off.
The way trademark law works is that if you do not police your trademarks, if you allow anyone to use those trademarks without permission, then you will eventually lose control over those trademarks. So we grant permission to use our trademarkednames generously to those who ask permission, and we will continue to insist that others do not use our trademarks without permission or in ways that confuse our customers and the marketplace.
This is the problem that Amazon.com wanted us to help them address for their customers. And it is the reason we will continue to enforce our trademarks whenever and wherever anyone attempts to infringe on them.
Cheers, Bob.
ps. The term Red Hat Linux GPL is neither a sanctioned term by Red Hat, nor is it accurate - a significant amount of the code in Red Hat Linux is licensed under BSD, Artistic, X, NPL, and other open source licenses.
12(may be less in your state) jurors, a few layers, and a judge would probably tell you if you've crossed.
I would imagine you'd be caught calling a product "this is not red hat linux" and distributing Debian, since you're causing confusion about brand names. It'd be like opening a restaurant called "this is not mcdonalds" and serving fast food.
1 Red Hat CD =
$1 CD + $2 download time + Right to support
Basically the real value of the Red Hat distribution is the rights to 90 days technical support (ie Linux wannabe hand-holding). This is turning software from a product to a service. Until the public is educated into thinking that the CD is more a time limited ticket valid fomr date of purchase rather than a unlimited end-user license, there will continue to be confusion. Perhaps RedHat could spend some of their IPO into running a series of educational ads to help distinguish what exactly it is that they are selling would help the general public to value the necessity of good technical support, a strong reputation to guarentee a warenty (funny how most vendors disclaim that their software actually does anything!) and bug-free software (ObjJoke, every program has at least 1 bug and can be reduced by 1 line, therefore all programs can be reduced to 1 line with a bug in it). The alternative mechanism is to clearly state on the CD a list of reputable resellers where a support guarentee is extended due to prior agreements.
LL
What about 'I can't believe it's not RedHat' or 'I can't believe it's not McDonalds'?
--
The *content* is the same, but the *product* is vastly different. I am amazed that nobody here is making the distinction. (Well, ok, not amazed, this is after all a slashdot discussion area, so maybe disappointed is a better word.)
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
I for one want what I buy to be spelled out clearly. So not only to the resellers have to say that this is their version of what RH is publishing but vendors need to make sure it's labeled correctly on their site.
DK
The problem is not ketchup being moved from bottle to another.
The product RedHat sells is _not_ Linux. They sell support. If I buy cd that says RedHat I am buying their support of that product. I would expect this to cause more confusion in the future, and they seem to have the right idea.
--jeff
I can certainly understand why Red Hat would be concerned about this. I would be pissed if I were the user who purchased a non-official copy, and thought I was getting the Real Thing.
Not that I wouldn't buy a non-official CD. But I would be concerned about being misled.
Seems like Bob did a good job of explaining the issue.
AdamL.
I just wonder what all the fuss about this was to begin with. Redhat doesn't want to be bugged with support requests from people who bought cheap CDs that Redhat doesn't see a dime of return on. They also don't want people buying said CDs thinking they're entitled to said support and feeling cheated.
This, to me, seems perfectly reasonable. This also seems to be exactly what they were doing even when we *didn't* have the note from Redhat above.
-- Rick
Not all the stories are like this, of course, but there's a good number that start as rumors or press releases which could have wide ranging impact and responce.
Instead of posting these stories as they were submitted, maybe there could be a small group (10 or 20) people that would be willing to follow up on a rumor before it was posted to slashdot in order to qualm the negative responses.
Yes, that probably means a day or two turnaround for some stories. If it's necessary to tell people that these are being worked on, maybe /. could include a "In progress" box to let us know that this team is in gear. This would hopefully cut down the submissions of the same story about 1000 times.
And again, this is only for rumors or stories were the full details and implications aren't know. Factual stories eg "Linux 3.0 out today!" can be posted without question.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
...not to mention the little shadowman emblem you get to peel and stick on your case after you've scraped the windows logo off! :-)
I like the "Red Hat Linux Free Edition" idea - people used to shareware (sorry) will grasp that they're missing something if it's "free" - this time, though, instead of functionality, it's support.
:-)
I've always wondered why RH ISOs weren't more prevalent on the 'net - I always assumed that RH didn't want to make it *too* simple to burn a RH cd? And I couldn't blame them for that.
There's a difference between a brand name (Red Hat) and a product (Red Hat Linux). What the product is (or how it's licensed) doesn't matter in regards to my argument.
My inital response (12 jurors, etc) was part joke, part serious. In an extreme case, you'd have to settle in court if the name was used imporperly or not. And you're not settling anything about if Red Hat software is free or not. You're settling the fact that someone may be improperly use the Red Hat name and/or logo to misrepresent a product. Again, this has nothing to do with the GPL, nor will (or should) it prevent me from making a CD distro out of it and saying "Enry Linux, based on Red Hat Linux. This version is not supported by Red Hat. $1.99". How hard is this? The name of the distro is "Enry Linux", and thus has no official relationship to Red Hat, other than the fact that I mention it's based on Red Hat, and it's not supported by them.
Now, if I started to make a CD called "Red Hat Linux" and that's all I called it, I think that would be grounds for me to get a call from a lawyer about it. I'm misrepresenting Red Hat, since I'm implying that I can sell you a product for $1.99 that has printed documentation, support, etc.
Perhaps the answer is to clearly mark what the software does or does not include. For example:
Linux, based on Red Hat Linux 6.0. No manual, no support. $1.99.
You're not misrepresenting Linux (since it is Linux). you're not misrepresenting Red Hat (since you say it's based on and clearly indicate no manual, no support).
PS I'm a RHAT shareholder.
For clarification of a point here - the things you get that are extra with "Official RedHat Linux" box set is:
(1) Relatively [IMHO] useless manual which can be downloaded in its entirety in PDF Form from RedHat's site.
(1) Powered by RedHat case logo sticker [which i find cool but i'm easily amused]
(1) RedHat Bumper Sticker
(1) Source Code CD [containing all the source code for RedHat - downloadable from their site
(1) Applications CD - this contains demos of alot of different commercial applications for RedHat, as well as some free ones (Corel WordPerfect for example - and i think staroffice might be on there)
Installation Tech Support
So, In all honesty you are paying for a lot extra. It isn't petty - it's protecting their image. Sure, its cool that you get alot of this stuff free from them w/o a cent - but it's important to maintain a good image by ensuring people know if they are buying a boxed set with all of those aformentioned goodies and extras - or a burn of a downloaded copy of Redhat. All RedHat is really asking for is some assistance in clarification.
-brendan
From the looks of it, she is the press contact for redhat:
Worldwide: +1-919-547-0012
Fax: +1-919-547-0024
For presales technical questions, quantity orders, reseller inquiries, or
+1-919-547-0012
Worldwide Headquarters
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 13588
RTP, NC 27709
Shipping Address
2600 Meridian Parkway
Durham, NC 27713
The thing is, not only did I not expect support from Red Hat, I knew that to get that price I couldn't even call Linux Mall to talk to a real person about my order. That's why it was cheap.
Red Hat probably (hopefully?) pays their tech support team a fair bit of money to answer questions for Red Hat users. Where do they get the money to do that? By selling that same $1.89 CD in a pretty box for $30+.
I hope it's obvious that if RH offers support to everyone using the RH distro, they will quickly go out of business. So they limit support to people who have paid for it by buying an Official RH package.
Red Hat Linux: $1.89. You want support with that? Another $30, please.
The problem that initiated this article is that some people are selling the equivalent of those $1.89 CD's on Amazon and eBay and so on, and either accidentally or intentially implying that purchasers are getting the Official product with support included.
To protect those purchasers, RH is simply saying "Don't call it Official if it isn't. Don't give your buyers the impression that they can call for support."
Duh.
Have you got your tickets to VCF 3.0 yet?
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
hmmm, if they had thought of it, I think a certain company might have included such a scenario in it's appropriately title Day of The Dead Documet. Negative marketing works in politics, why not in software.
+&x
>Actually, due to the stipulations of TM law, they
>ARE selling "RedHat Linux". You can't trademark
>a noun.
That's oversimplifying matters. That aside, find a dictionary with "RedHat" in it . . .
I think it is high time you anticipate reader's reaction and do extra homework assignments BEFORE you post anything on slashdot main page. I think am speaking on behalf of regular slashdot readers when I say that this pattern is getting old:
1) post something controversial on slashdot
2) get a knee-jerk reaction from the 'uninformed public'
3) do a follow-up to address the concerns and/or fix-up mistakes in the first post
In this case, you made redhat look bad in the firs t posting. There are regulars who knew that it is not as bad as it looks and red hat has good reasons to protect their trademarks. When you get a hot tip like this, what should have been done is to contact amazon.com and redhat.com, get their official stance, AND THEN post it to slashdot.
In the past, it is not problem because a) your audience is only a handful of people and b) you just a provide a link to a reputable newsite written by journalist who has done their own homework (or at least should have their homework). This means, your only responsibility is to have a correct and consise summary on their article.
Now, slashdot is getting more and more of SLASHDOT EXCLUSIVES like this redhat story, the 911 linux dispatch story, and the packetstorm story. Since these was not mainstream at the time of the post, there is no reputable website to link to; there is no 'professional' journalist doing their homework for you. You have to make all the necessary phone calls to verify the story (like Roblimo did in the 911 dispatch story). Now, that you are getting paying doing what you are doing, you have no excuse not to do this.
I hope you take this criticism constructively. Take care guys.
Hasdi
- Support This is the big one, and this is why real money is needed. For every 1000 users of the official version, a certain number will require support, so this actually eats up a share of the cost that can't be amortized over a large number of sales. Note that the grizzled veterans can buy a less expensive version of Red Hat from Red Hat that doesn't include support. What does it include? Read on.
- Coasters You're paying a little something for the CD. Note that those who sell copies only have to pay for the CD's and don't see any of the other costs. For those, keep reading.
- Documentation You get some sort of book with instructions, some of which are bound to be handy. Dead trees cost money, at least a couple bucks. On top of that, someone has to write the stuff. I pay for Perl books from O'Reilly at least in part to subsidize Larry Wall, just as I pay for GNU books at least in part to subsidize RMS.
- Distribution-specific Research & Development The people who design the distribution (decide where to put things, what permissions they should have, and take the time to compile, install, test, and package all the packages) need to get paid. This can be made up by volume of sales.
- Non-specific Research & Development Money to support the folks who are doing research for Red Hat (or whatever distribution) that is of benefit to the whole community. Alan Cox is the poster boy for this concept, but a number of others do paid work for Red Hat and other distributions that ultimately benefits all Linux disributions. This is one reason to pay full price even if you no longer need support. The community can use about as much money as we can dump into it. Not all distributions are created equal in this regard: some give back more to the community than others. Shop around.
The cheap versions also have their uses:- Evangelism If I pay $2 for a CD, I'm more willing to loan it out to newbies who want to take Linux for a test drive. If they need support, they can call me. I tend to keep recent versions of pretty much all the major distributions, and this is the only way I can keep this affordable.
- Testing I've been burned on this. If you're actually releasing binaries for Linux, it's a good idea to test them on a bunch of different distributions. Keeping up with a bunch of different distributions is most affordable when you pay $2 for them.
In defense of Red Hat:I've seen those posts on not only amazon but other auction houses where someone is intentionally duping bidders into thinking they are paying for a retail product when it is apparent that they are not to the dubious buyer. I applaud Redhat for their efforts to protect the "newbie" consumers from such fraud.
Joseph Elwell.
It's almost sickening
Sosumi. just kidding. DONT!
Obviously the Heinz ketchup analogy is pretty poor. Nobody is burning "hello world" or pr0n some such other random crap to a CD and attempting to pass it off as Red Hat. They are actually copying the binaries, which in my world translates to exact equivalence. A better analogy would be that of pouring the contents of a Heinz ketchup bottle into a second bottle, and then selling the product. The consumer would wind up with precisely the same ketchup.
:)
But what they wouldn't get would be peace of mind. Do you really want to buy rebottled ketchup? What if it's been contaminated? Can you get a refund if it turns out to be red paint? Similarly people who buy RHAT spoofs aren't getting any assurance that their product will be high quality, and they will have no recourse when things get sticky.
But to quibble over the difference between "Red Hat Linux" and "Official Red Hat Linux" is not just petty, it's confusing. What RHAT should really do is claim the exclusive right to advertise "Official Red Hat Product Support". In this way, you could redistribute their distro, but you could not claim that your product was "Red Hat Linux with Official Red Hat Product Support". A little marketing down the road, and consumers would soon realize that these four words were just as crucial as "Intel inside" and demand that their copies be official.
It also avoids pissing off the Anonymous Cowards...
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
It really endears me to Red Hat that we'd get the scoop straight from the head of Red Hat explained in a well thought-out, clear manner. They obviously thought it was important to take the concerns of the community seriously. Keep up the good work!
What really amazes me is how quickly and vehemently many people reacted when this story first appeared. Instead of waiting to hear all sides of the issue, many people automatically assumed the worst.
/. and elsewhere) fearing or predicting that Red Hat would begin to walk the same path that Microsoft has. Many believe that somehow Red Hat would hijack Linux and pervert it for their own purposes. They somehow equate the high visibility that Red Hat has obtained with the tendency or desire to make money at all costs, including screwing the consumers and end users.
It seems to me that there is a very prominent fear in the Linux community of any attempt to commercialize Linux. I have seen countless comments over the last few months (here on
When I first read the hubbub surrounding the Amazon.com letter, I didn't jump to conclusions. I knew that Red Hat has maintained an excellent reputation for being open and fair, and preventing all uses of the Red Hat moniker outside of officially sanctioned products didn't seem to fit with that reputation. Red Hat is not a company to fear. Not only are they unable to hijack Linux (thanks to the GPL and other licenses), it would be a very bad business decision. They would lose the trust and support of the very developers and community they rely on in order to provide their product.
Red Hat has done a great job of being open and honest with us in the past. They really do deserve the benefit of the doubt when situations like this arise. I can only hope that those who have risen up against Red Hat in the past will take this into consideration before vilifying them in the future.
I totally agree with Red Hat.
The product they sell, is not only a copy of the linux cd, but an amount of free support as well.
I think, indeed, that the vendors who copy the Red Hat cd, should say either "a copy of the Red Hat cd" or "based on the Red Hat cd", or something equivalent, that clearly distinguishes their product from the services sold by Red Hat.
Maybe Red Hat too should distinguish the cd more clearly from the total product they sell.
I think it's in their interest to emphasize that they are not selling the cd or its content, especially not the content. They should make clear that they are actually selling the support service that the buyer is entitled to, and that the CD is just added for convenience.
From a business point of view, selling the cd or the content do not make sense for the Red Hat company; as you can freely copy it. As a matter of fact, people who are not interested in the support service should not buy the CD from Red Hat, but buy it from one of the cheaper resellers.
Frankly, I think Red Hat would do consumers a favour, by unbundling the support service from the CD by itself. They should sell the CD at a realistic market price, much below its current price, and offer the support service separately, probably at a much higher price. It's also fairer to consumers who buy the CD, without ever having the intention to use the support service. Furthermore, the people who want to buy support, are most likely willing to pay much more.
By bundling both the support and the service, Red Hat raises suspicion.
Are they waiting for enough market share and volume to simply fork from Linux, and produce some kind of semi-proprietary version, in which free and non-free software are inextricable mixed, making the free content unfree? After which they can capitalize on the market share Red Hat name, built using free resources, to disallow the freely copying of the CD, and in effect insisting on a license fee per copy?
Therefore, I think the GPL should be adapted quickly, to prohibit that practice of putting GPLed software on a single medium together with proprietary software, in effect removing from the buyer the freedom to copy the free content, because he is not allowed to copy the proprietary content.
Wack me on the head with the relization Red Hat does have code from BSD, and other diferent licencing systems. I guess they have the right to implement their own umbrella disribution policy.
I think this must have everything to do with Tech support and nothing to do with anything else. Those tech people have to get paid, and the officail RH distro is the only dirrect entry that RH has to the market. Hence their only real source of income they draw on to pay the techs, with the new IPO being the exception.
Those poor newbies that thought they had they had free tech support. I would be mad, really mad at myself(If I were them). You got to be cheap to buy stuff at auction, stupid to buy something that is free. I get a funnny picture in my mind of open sorce software up for sale on an auction. Then again people actually sell their soul on Ebay. Open Source licencing, and the competitive nature of capitalism sure do make a strange mix. This is not the last of these type of changes, at least in my opinion. And BTW, in my opinion I think this is a good thing for RH to do.
-Diz
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
How about "Red Light Linux"
mwa haha!
Insert mind here.
Why is it that whenever a distribution tries to become main stream, they are accused of "becoming Microsoft?" It is quite obvious here that Red Hat has just IPO'd and now has name recognition in the computer industry beyond the level of those of us who simply will go to try to find the best OS to use, or the most agreeable cause to work for.
In my mind the reaction to the last article about Red Hat falling right into what Suck said they would do, or just the general comparison of Red Hat to Microsoft is all bad. If Red Hat was really turning this corner, do you think that they would have offered the stock to the open source developers such as they did?
I think that they key point here is that if someone goes to the store and says "I want Red Hat," Red Hat wants to make sure that they get it so that the customer can truly see what red hat is. I think the same people that went to the store a year ago and asked the question, "Does this computer come with the internet installed" are going to asking for Red Hat in a similar manner. Name recoginition is how you will make the desktop, you will not get there with these second name distros based on yours that soley bare your name. If you want to be a Linux hacker and don't want to fall under the "trendy wave" like all this seems to be opening up to, then go out and get a copy of Debian for yourself.
The fact of the matter is if you really want to see freedom in the computer industry insofar as OS's go, then do go accusing everyone who tries to make a run at name recognition and a run at the desktop as being Microsoft. They may make a lot of money by getting on the average desktop, but what they do with the money is another thing that we haven't had the chance to see. Let us judge them on what they do not what everone else thinks they will do. Anything else is severly unfair.
---
"Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese," Wallace.