Is linux free 4979

They have changes this from teh last time I read it ( 6 months or so ago). It is still highly intrusive and is in conflict with the statement later on that the Distribution is under the GPL. What in the world are they auditing? Since you have the perfect right to copy the distro to as many computers as you want, and since trademark law applies to the marketplace, not what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom or office, what would they look for on this audit?

This does NOT state anything about what the license covers. It states that Redhat is jealous of their trademark, which they have a right to be. But they do NOT have the right to restrict copying of a GPL distro via trademark concerns.

I note that this document is a vast vast change over the previous (year ago) document they had. And I think it still does not go far enough. As they say, the crucial issue is whether something causes confusion in the marketplace. If I take the exact distribution that redhat supplies and place it onto a CDROm and state what is on that cdrom is the Redhat distribution, what I am saying is both true, and unlikely to cause confusion in the marketplace. In fact my taking that same distribution and calling it Blanc Chapeau is what is liable to cause confusion in the marketplace. I do not believe that they would have a leg to stand on in court if they were to try to prevent me from calling it the Redhat distribution. However that does not mean that they would not sic their lawyers onto me and threaten me with costly court actions. Look at SCO and Linux. Having no case need not prevent court actions.

However, Redhat admits that their files are critical to the distributions

You must modify the files identified as REDHAT-LOGOS and ANACONDA-IMAGES so as to remove alluse of images containing the Red Hat trademark or Red Hats Shadow Man logo. Note that mere deletion of these files may corrupt the software.

If the removal of the files "may corrupt the software" then those file are certainly not "mere aggregation". And their presence is being used to limit the rights to copy the software, in direct contravention of the GPL.

The question is whether or not they are obliged to do that. I would argue that they are not.