On 06/14/2012 02:23 AM, Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:57 PM, P. Larry Nelson<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> zxq9 wrote on 6/13/2012 12:32 AM:
>>> On 06/13/2012 06:44 AM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
>>>
>>>> (On this list, are we really required to say "TUV" instead of
>>>> "***censored***",
>>>> as if we were playing a 1984 double-speak live action game?)
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, because lawyers have made even casual conversation a legal minefield
>>> for
>>> reasons other than getting disappeared by the Thought Police.
>>>
>>> Pretty much anything trademarked, burdened by customer guarantees of any
>>> sort,
>>> or otherwise encumbered in any way should be referred to obliquely on this
>>> list.
>>> This sounds silly, I know, but the reason is that the labs who support
>>> this
>>> project don't have the bandwidth or the desire to even open a conversation
>>> about
>>> how to open a proper, legal, trade protections unencumbered conversation,
>>> and to
>>> that end terms like "TUV" are used around here.
>>>
>>> Not that TUV is a bad player -- *far* from it -- but why even open the
>>> door in
>>> case the wind starts blowing the other way?
>>
>> Could someone who maintains this list (Connie? Pat?) please confirm or deny
>> this seemingly absurd policy!
>>
>> I have not searched the archives of this list, but of the 1824 messages I
>> have saved locally over the years, for one reason or another, 333 of them
>> contain "Redhat" in the body of the message, while another 74 contain "Red
>> Hat".
>> I don't recall anyone ever getting their typing fingers slapped.
>
> You forgot to check for RHEL. :)

Can't imagine anyone would get in trouble over this, ever. But the 
reasoning is in the FAQ:
http://www.scientificlinux.org/documentation/faq/general1

I misspoke when I wrote "on this list" but rather its an official 
project guideline. Of course, that could change -- but is it such a big 
issue either way?