RHEL clones: a surfeit of riches

Actually you did see the case I was really focused on, i.e. modified binaries generated from unmodified source. I.e. rebuilt on top of a differing linux distro (gcc/etc) platform. And in that case, Dave made it perfectly clear that redistributing such things, under any sort of moniker whatsoever, would be something he would prosecute, if for no other reason than the IP law angles that involve needing to prove that you have actually enforced your trademarks. Basically he was saying- if you want to redistribute, you'll have to scrub every protected mark, and for legal reasons he explicitly (like many other corporations) chose not to specify what exactly that means (trademark names in email addresses within source code files? exactly where is the line drawn and how is the novice university-level GPL enthusiast to know how they need to draw that line for legal/ethical reasons?). In the end I used some wicked regexs and even sillier methods to just go overkill scrubbing devkitpro marks. But it was more technical work than I would want to wish upon the average open source user, modifier, and redistributor. Now, on the other hand, I'll give RedHat credit for the sadly practical hands off method they seem to be taking on that account. I.e. not seeming to care about things like even the bugurl and whatnot found in e.g. the ScientificLinux Xorg srpm's specs build code. And in general Fedora over the years clearly seems to be heading in the right direction, and making excellent progress, in facilitating the ability for someone to rebuild from source, remove the needed amount of fedora marks, and redistribute without having to gain anyone's permission. (Though of course that isn't really true, since if you wanted to enhance/modify any code amongst the subset belonging to firefox, you'd have to go to extraordinary superhuman lengths to scrub the firefox marks for the same reasons. ... sigh ...