Subject: Re: GPL and trademarks and brandnames...
From: David Welton <>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:35:13 -0800

On Mon, Nov 09, 1998 at 07:07:39AM -0800, Eyler wrote:

> 2)  At the last PLUG (Portland Linux/Unix Group), Bob Young talked
> about this model and felt that people selling copies of Red Hat
> were advertising for him.  He wanted to make his money from services
> and add-on products (I'm assuming he meant things like the Red Hat
> Secure Server).  -- I hope I've not misunderstood his points, but
> he's on this list and can correct me if I've screwed up.

I keep seeing some of the same people on a lot of lists...:->

I too was able to see Mr. Young's talk, and was rather impressed.  I
work at an advertising agency, and some of the ideas have sort of
rubbed off on me.  One point he made, that one might extrapolate to a
more general theme is, how often do you buy generic vs name brand
products?  Most of the time, generic stuff is actually made by the
name brand people, but you don't get the label.  I know I feel the
urge to get the name brand product, to be certain I'm getting the
'real thing'.

Admittedly, deciding on and purchasing an OS hopefully involves more
neurons than buying Corn Flakes or Cheerios, but there is something to
be said for having an image and brand associated with a particular
product, to have 'redhat' pop into your head when you think of

While I am a Debian developer, I am enthusiastic about what Redhat has
been able to do with this model.  It seems that they really haven't
had to comprimise much on their free software principles, yet, by
having this image and brand, it acts as a "lightning rod" for money,
press, publicity, etc.

I am interested to see how broadly applicable this model may be -
Redhat is a pretty broad swath of software, from a desktop to
compilers, to web tools...

David Welton                 

	Debian GNU/Linux -