> IANAL, IANetc, but trademark law was used by Redhat lawyers with Enterprise Linux to ~stifle CentOS, a RHEL clone, through Redhat notices or references. I'm open to interpretation on the RHEL and CentOS matter, but is BSD code hampered under trademark law as well, and under what constraints? Sure would be nice to have a FAQ FGA list for many of these matters. More legal work ahead, grr, teeth pulling, and slows down my IT learning.
Yes, it was a trademark issue, but not to "stifle" anybody. The issue at hand was the use of the Red Hat name and their red fedora logo. Yellow Dog Linux, being based on Red Hat Linux, had the same issue, and they simply replaced all the logos and Red Hat trademarks with their own. Red Hat didn't have Problem #1 with that.
After CentOS did likewise, Red Hat (correctly) backed off. Now, if anything, they kinda like the existence of CentOS, because they've found that it furthers sales of RHEL. "Prototype on CentOS, deploy on RHEL," they've publicly said. I've deployed on both.
So, no, there was no attempt to stifle CentOS, White Box Enterprise Linux, Yellow Dog Linux, Pink Tie Enterprise Linux, Oracle's so-called "Unbreakable Linux", or any other similar projects. Red Hat are indeed correct to police their trademark, or they'll lose it (remember what nearly happened with Kirk McKusick and the BSD Daemon).