[drewcrawford]

My assertion had nothing to do with whether they made it easy or hard to remove their trademarks.

My assertion was that Red Hat customers make agreements with Red Hat in which they agree not to redistribute RHEL. That is directly analogous to the GRSecurity case, except there we are relying on something OP heard thirdhand and in the case of RH we can read the agreements.

[SwellJoe]

"My assertion was that Red Hat customers make agreements with Red Hat in which they agree not to redistribute RHEL. That is directly analogous to the GRSecurity case, except there we are relying on something OP heard thirdhand and in the case of RH we can read the agreements."

Then your assertion is a lie. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

Red Hat very clearly does not prohibit distribution of the source of their kernel, or any other GPL component of RHEL, and in fact they make it available for free in the form of CentOS, and they do not prohibit others from distributing it either. Everything you've quoted above says nothing about what you keep saying it means.

[cyphar]

You don't understand the issue then (and your assertion is patently false as I outlined elsewhere).

First of all, requiring trademark removal is something the FSF considers acceptable so long as it is reasonable to do[1]. Both RHEL and SUSE have all of their branding in specifically labeled packages so it is easy to replace.

Second of all, GRSecurity will always penalise you if you distribute their sources (regardless of whether you remove any trademarks they may have in their source -- which I don't think they do).

The two issues are completely different and you're muddying the waters by bringing up Red Hat, even though the free software community has agreed that removal of trademarks is acceptable[1]. You're bringing up a non-issue in a discussion about an actual issue.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guideli...