On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 11:29, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> Chris Gehlker said:
> > On Feb 4, 2004, at 9:02 AM, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> >
> >> To be clear I am not saying the RHEL product is bad. Therefore, I
> >> don't
> >> see the need for someone else to repackage it. I think the binding of
> >> support to the license is less than desirable.
> >
> > You seem to be missing the point that the mere fact that others have
> > the *ability* to repackage RHEL means that the binding of support to
> > the license is very weak, simple branding as opposed to lock-in.
>
> You appear to be missing the fact (as I am lead to believe) that there are
> part of RHEL that are not available for others to "repackage".
---
Huh?
I have already posted the links for der.Hans
Red Hat Trademark Guidelines - main page
<
http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/index.html>
The only parts of RHEL that are not available to repackage are the
trademarks themselves - pictures and references to the Red Hat name and
other trademarks as listed on this link.
I don't know who or what is leading you to believe otherwise.
Craig
(text/plain)