XTCommerce Violation?

[Matthew Flaschen]

Right.  I'm familiar with that trademark concept, and it's the basis Red 
Hat uses 
(http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/page6.html). 
They say that you should not use the name Red Hat (for unmodified Red 
Hat software) so you "will not indicate or imply that your product 
originates from [Red Hat]".  To me, though, this implication is 
reasonable, as the software was created by Red Hat, and verbatim copies 
can still be said to be originate from Red Hat.  Thus, I thinking they 
are overstating their Lantham rights.

Red Hat also deliberately uses non-free image licenses to prevent intact 
redistribution.

Matthew Flaschen

David A. Desrosiers wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 10:12 -0400, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> 
>>> It would be peculiar if they forbade distribution of their
>>> *unmodified* software unless the name was changed first. 
>>> Is that what you are describing? 
> 
>> I know that's what RedHat does.
> 
> This is often called a "Lanham Act" violation, iirc. or "False
> designation of origin". 
> 
>