[TriLUG] Re: OEM Policy

Thu Aug 29 13:19:35 EDT 2002

As I stated before fellas I have no problems with their OEM policy my
problem is with the way that they handled the situation.  As previously
stated I would have paid for the service call if I was in the wrong about
it.  Thats not the problem.  The problem lays when yu have a problem with me
and if I violated your OEM policy you need to talk to me about it, not my
customer they know nothing about it.  The second part of my problem is I had
already been told that that approach was acceptable, that I could buy retail
versions and preinstall and distribute them with my PCs thats what my
problems with them are.  I dont care how much their OEM prices are.  If they
were too steep I would have gone to someone else like I did.  Also Im not
trying to become known as a Cheap Bytes like one of the other readers
suggested these were official Red Hat Retail versions from CompUSA that I
bought for 59.00 a peice.   They need to show just a little bit of
proffessional courtesy when dealing with people

> Hi ThunderBear and Roberto,
>
> Ok, now we're getting to the heart of the matter.  The GPL says
> absolutely *NOTHING* about support.  The word doesn't even appear in the
> license document.  And don't take my word for it.  Instead, please go
> (re-)read it at:
>
>   http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html
>
>
> Under such licensing terms, Red Hat and other companies are able to
> offer support contracts for the GPL'ed and similarly licensed software
> under *any* terms that they desire so long as their terms do not
> infringe upon the basic licenses for the distributed packages.  Try to
> understand the distinction.  Support is a service offered under one or
> more contracts and is thus separate from the physical software
> distribution.
>
> That said, I think Red Hat is totally justified in their efforts to
> license and control OEM installs.  As we all know, installing Linux is
> not always easy due to hardware issues (eg. sound cards).  Support calls
> cost Red Hat money and they certainly don't want to get flooded with
> complaints from buyers of machines that have been poorly installed or
> poorly configured by shoddy or clueless resellers.  Its just common
> sense.  Remember, Red Hat is mostly in the business of selling their
> "brand" and support.  They have a clear responsibility to their
> shareholders to protect and nurture their brand.
>
> So what can a small reseller do about this situation?  Here are, AFAIK,
> four legitimate approaches:
>
>   1) Follow Red Hat's OEM terms.  Get the training, pay the fees,=20
>      and work with them under their terms.  Remember, its *their*=20
>      name that you are, in part, selling and they own the trade-
>      mark so they get some control over its use.
>
>   2) Be an OEM for a different distribution if you don't like Red=20
>      Hat's terms.
>
>   3) Create your own distro.  In fact, you can copy and use every=20
>      last *bit* of the Free and Open Source packages within Red=20
>      Hat's distribution (which is nearly *ALL* of it) so long as=20
>      you don't use Red Hat's name in your advertising or sales=20
>      documents.  Go ahead and call your new distribution "Pink=20
>      Hat Linux" and loudly proclaim "100% compatibility with=20
>      leading Linux distributions" in your advertisements.  You=20
>      could then sell your own support for your own OS.  This=20
>      is totally legal and is being done by numerou consultants=20
>      including the good folks (http://www.tummy.com) who make=20
>      and sell KRUD.
>
>   4) Become a boxed-OS reseller.  Follow whatever terms are=20
>      necessary to re-sell end-user copies of Red Hat.  At the=20
>      same time, sell computers with no OS installed. If the=20
>      consumer buys the computer and OS and loads the OS by=20
>      themselves then they are covered under Red Hat's support=20
>      terms.
>
> Roberto, #3 and #4 both sound like good approaches for companies who
> are, as you have described, trying to do it "on-the-cheap".
>
> And I'm sure there are other legal approaches to this issue.  But they
> don't include silly tactics like pre-installing end-user copies of Red
> Hat as an end-run around the OEM/support terms.  Such gimmicks belie a
> fundamental mis-understanding of the support contracts and are clearly
> unprofessional and, depending on the support contract terms, probably
> illegal.
>
> Ed
>
> ps - I'm not a lawyer.  I cannot offer legal advice.
>
> pps - I have not closely read the support or OEM terms for=20
>       Red Hat Linux.  Have you?
>
>
> --=20
> Edward H. Hill III, PhD=20
> Post-Doctoral Researcher   |  Email:  ed at eh3.com,  ehill at mines.edu
> Division of ESE            |  URLs:   http://www.eh3.com
> Colorado School of Mines   |    http://cesep.mines.edu/people/edhill.php
> Golden, CO  80401          |  Phone:  303-273-3483    Fax: 303-273-3311
>
> --=-fclgYoTZCtzDImvhxpGU
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
> iD8DBQA9bUkKkytyZh528SMRArtnAJ98uHELjFtFpUKcNi8jte3hJ8p/aQCgm00P
> /k+vo24Tg2Nqd++hIsPXiIs=
> =Mgs7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --=-fclgYoTZCtzDImvhxpGU--
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 17
> From: Mike Mueller <mjm-58 at mindspring.com>
> To: trilug at trilug.org
> Subject: Re: [TriLUG] Re: gentle reminder
> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:13:29 -0400
> Reply-To: trilug at trilug.org
>
> On Wednesday 28 August 2002 15:27, Roberto J Dohnert wrote:
> <snip>
> > The threat was worded like this " If you
> > continue to preload Red Hat Linux without being a registered OEM we will
> > sue you and it doesnt matter if you buy a retail version or not we will
not
> > offer any support for anybody who buys a computer preloaded with Red Hat
> > Linux from any reseller who is not an OEM.
> <snip>
>
> IANAL, but my guess is that the dispute is about representing the distro.
RH
> and SUSE and other commercial distros try to establish a brand and then
> control the distribution channels as is their right.  If I had a distro
and a
> support organization, I would size the support based on the predicted
sales
> from known channels.  If I had unknown channels supplying unforseen
support
> load, I would be blowing my budget.
>
> RH did lay out the conditions to be an OEM.  You also found SUSE had a
> similar plan at a lesser cost.  If SUSE satisfies your needs at a lower
cost
> then you have done one your many jobs as an entrepreneur.
>
> Here's the hard part of your job though.  Some of your potential customer
are
> going to *want* Redhat.  RH is the big dog on the block and people know
RH.
> I recommend that you rethink your position later on.  You may find the
cost
> of being a RH OEM is not so bad when your volume goes up.  Walk away for
now,
> but don't burn the bridge back.
> --
> mueller, mike