Subject: Re: GPL and trademarks and brandnames...
From: "William C. Cheng" <william@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 13:05:52 -0500

Kragen <kragen@pobox.com> wrote:
 > > Brian Bartholomew <bb@wv.com> wrote:
 > > > If the bits are different, then I agree the packaging must clearly
 > > > divorce itself from the creator's reputation.  But what if the bits
 > > > are the same?

If the bits are identical, I would buy from a cheaper source.  I would
also have no problem with trademark issue in this case (if the original
distributor put the product under GPL, he/she must allow redistribution
of an exact copy because the product is in every sense from the original
distributor).

 > > Well, cheapbytes.com sells Red Hat for $1.99, so the model seems to work.
 > 
 > I have often wondered about this.
 > 
 > Perhaps most of Red Hat's customers are first-time Linuxers?  That
 > would explain the high first-time-unix-user rate described in "Sizing
 > the Linux Market".
 > 
 > I'm curious what fraction of Red Hat's 4.x buyers bought from Red Hat
 > for 5.x.

I bought Official Red Hat 4.2 from Red Hat.  I expected Red Hat 5.0 to be
unstable, so I waited till 5.1 came out.  I bought Official 5.1 from
Linux Central and was disappointed.  The Official 5.1 came in a Red Hat
box, so I think it's the real thing (and I would guess that Red Hat got
paid somehow).  May be I should have waited for 5.2.  Anyway, one of the
reasons I got the Official 5.1 from Linux Central was because of the
add-ons.  I assume that the add-ons are not on the $2 CD's.  Plus & Play
cards will be supported in the next Linux, so I guess I'll upgrading soon.
I may give Debian a try next time if there are bad press about the next
Red Hat release.
--
Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@acm.org <URL:http://bourbon.cs.umd.edu:8001/william/>
Return-Path: fsb-return-1328-william=cs.ucla.edu@crynwr.com