and say you can use it and freely redistribute and in fact you can modify it even as long as
you redistribute your modifications but then claim because of your trademark your earlier statement is not valid.
It seems obvious to me that it would be contrary to any statements made in the GPL if the entity in question demands that you change the source code to not mention your trademark . You have already said that you can use and redistribute the product modified as long as you allow others to do so as well. A trademark isn't meant to be used as a copyright,
its meant to preserve the right of the trademark holder to identify the commercial source of a product or service.
So Redhat asking to not use its labels and designs on a web page is fine but you can't enforce a trademark on a running program you have released GPL or words written in source code that's GPL, the fact that you give permission to use and redistribute it
modified or not in the GPL would negate any rights you have to how the source code or running program is changed or not changed as long as all changes are shown in full and all proper credit is given. The GPL actually partially serves the purposes of giving credit
always to the company or individual in question while giving free code.
---
Shidan Gouran
On 9/6/06, trixter aka Bret McDanel <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 02:25 +0200, Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 11:31 +1200, James Jones wrote:
> [snip]
> > Which, I
> > fear, that mean Asterisk may be head the way of Red Hat and going close
> > sourced!!!!!
>
> Maybe you should do a little research before you and make bold blanket
> statements (and top post). Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not closed
> source. How could for example CentOS exist without the source? See:
> ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/en/os/x86_64/SRPMS
> Sure looks like *source* rpms to me...
>
> Patrick
I think perhaps that the confusion exists because redhat embeds
trademarked material in the product and while they give you exact
instructions on how to remove that content so you can exercise your GPL
rights without a lot of effort, you still cant redistribute their
trademarks without their permission. This caused a lot of bad feelings
in the community.
But then again there are companies that embed trademarked material in
their product and dont provide such information on how you can exercise
your GPL rights with the product without a lot of investment in time in
hunting down everything to ensure compliance.
http://www.digium.com/en/company/profile/trademarkpolicy.php
Many in the open source community agree that this certainly goes against
the spirit of the GPL, and in some cases against the wording since you
dont have all the freedoms to edit and modify.
--
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
Belfast IE +44 28 9099 6461 DE +49 801 777 555 3402
Utrecht NL +31 306 553058 US WA +1 360 207 0479
US NY +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378
http://www.trxtel.com the VoIP provider that pays you!
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
_______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
