http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22197
LOL

I don't see anything wrong with this and think the other people just didn't read very carefully. They are just basically saying (boiling it down the bare bone here...)

If you modify this Red Hat version, then don't call it Red Hat anything, becuase it ain't. Call it your own name, and don't put that we're in any way associated with this modified version.

Simple really, and makes sense.

I have to agree with Chicken. Actually it in a way gives them the right to take what RedHat is done, make a few changes to it, put their own name on it, and then sell it for a profit.

This is nothing like MicroSoft as they would say, well do say, you can't change it, sell it, or do anything else with it. They almost don't let you give it away.

Michael

Therein lies the inherent problem with this type of open license.

Certain aspects of the open source movement just don't make any sense to me. I have to wonder why anyone would want to develop a viable product, and leave it open to people stealing your work base, and rebranding it. In the commercial software world, there's a word for that. Copyright Piracy. In the open source movement though, many of the commercial software intelectual property issues don't apply. In some ways it's good, because it enables developers to develop and use your product at no cost to you. But on the other hand, you open your self up to issues like this one. Personally, I think Red Hat and companies like it need to make some hard and possibly questionable legal decisions as we move forward.

Just my two cents.