[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Logo -- let's move on ... the legal loophole of "Fedora(TM)" for Red Hat

On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 08:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Avoid claiming things like that unless you have the legal knowledge 
> about this.

Dude, I'm brining up a very, very valid reason on why the name itself is
going to be a reason.  You can try to silence me on the hat issue, but
the name itself is a serious loophole from a legal standpoint.

Because it could very well be that Red Hat legal would have to force the
change of the name sometime in the future.  I'm not demonizing Red Hat
at all, I'm pointing out something very, very valid.

You can silence me now because you are thinking I am being
argumentative.  But make no mistake, some company in the future _will_
push the issue, and possibly force a name change on "Fedora(TM)" in the

> Let me repeat this in a simple fashion. The decision to not use a hat 
> for Fedora has already been made for whatever reason it has been made.  
> Its not going to change. So lets move on

Okay, let's move on ...

Has anyone postured the legal loophole that a "Fedora(TM)" trademark no
longer under the control and enforcement of Red Hat, might cause?

I'm serious.  This was my point, regardless of the illustration.

In fact, the whole reason I even figured we could use a hat was because
Fedora(TM) is controlled and enforced by Red Hat.  If not, then not only
is a hat not appropriate, but the name for a hat!

Dude, you don't have to be a lawyer to put this together.
If I'm running the Fedora Foundation, it's my #1 concern.

Bryan J. Smith     b j smith 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

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]