Logo -- dog, tag (with element), but no hat?

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 21:13 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> But it's called _Fedora_.  What do you mean no hat?!?!?!

Let me put it this way, and explain it to me like a 2-year old.

First off, let's start with ...

  "Fedora(TM) is a trademark of Red Hat, Inc."

The name "Fedora(TM)" would be considered "infringement" from a legal
standpoint if it came from another vendor.  But it comes from Red Hat!

So I'm still _failing_ to understand how the use of a trademarked word
that basically says "hat" is any different than a trademarked
illustration of the same damn thing.

Especially under these context:  
  http://www.fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/  
  http://www.fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/  

If Red Hat is going to give up control of the trademark, I still _fail_
to see the difference.  If Red Hat is going to assert it cannot allow
another use of a "hat" in a logo by the Fedora Foundation or whatever
entity that "owns" its governance, then how can it assert the use of
even the word "Fedora(TM)" outside of Red Hat's control at all?

Again, explain this to me like a 2-year old?

Is Red Hat going to maintain it owns the trademark of Fedora(TM) in the
future, and the guidelines of its use?

If so, then why can they do the same with an illustration?

And if not, is not even the word "Fedora(TM)" going to be a possible
point and example of use without permission?  Or is Red Hat going to
give permission?

And if so, then why can't they do the same with an illustration?

Again, IANAL, but this doesn't make sense to me.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith     b.j.smith at ieee.org     http://thebs413.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The best things in life are NOT free - which is why life is easiest if
you save all the bills until you can share them with the perfect woman