Hi, I assume that MSY is a troll but still going ahead and adding in the thread as the discussion is useful for many people who are not so clear about this whole thing.
MSY, Please understand the difference between Trade Marks, software licenses, Free software , commercial software, proprietory software. Looks like you have very "clear misunderstanding" of the terms and you need a legal advice about these terms. So, instead of sending some junk messages on the list, please get in touch with a legal advisor. Some points for you to seek more knowledge are: RHEL does not violate GPL RHEL is different than Fedora GPL v2 is different than GPL v3. Read GPL v3 for trademark and other related matters. As I remember, RHEL is not under GPL v3. If you want, you can BUY a box pack of RHEL which contains the source code also. and if you have the capabilities, remove all the RH trademarks and other such stuff and make a modified distro out of it. That modified can not be called RHEL as it will not have any TM of RH. All the best to you for that efforts of hacking RHEL. And all the best wishes and my moral support to your legal advisor !! /me signing off from this thread. Regards -Sudhanwa ps: this top posting is done knowingly. On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:25 PM, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Harish PIllay > I am educating myself about four kinds of freedom, for the users of the > software as per GPL .Freedom number two Redhat does not want to give user > for RHEL Linux Distribution .The > freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom > 2). > > > > > > > > > > > > Please refer > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.htmlFree software is a matter of > liberty, not price. To understand the > concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free > beer. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, > distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, > it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: > The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The > freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs > (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.The > freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom > 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements > to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). > Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is > free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should > be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, > either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone > anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other > things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.To read this much i > don't need any lawyer.Thanks for your inputs in discussion . > M.S.Yatnatti > > > KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, > Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG > > --- On Sat, 10/4/08, Harish Pillay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Harish Pillay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux > For You India print Magzine India > To: "The Linux-Delhi mailing list" <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 1:08 PM > > Yatnatti - > > Hi. I cannot help but be bewildered by your discussions on the > legality of distributing Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat (note the > two words), puts every bit of code out on GPL. In fact, Red Hat > goes above and beyond the minimum needed for compliance > with the GPL by placing all the source (patched and updated) for > free download [GPL only requires the provider to povide a link to > the original source and full source of their patches]. > >> This is debate happening. You all are >> experts can guide your fellow Linux users. >> Praveen,is teaching the open FOSS >> community that any body can club all individual GPL software into one >> Mega software collection under one umbrella using anaconda or Yum >> which is also GPL and make non-free commercial software=RHEL . > > Not sure what you mean here. > >> Still simple club all GPL = non free commercial .Please educate me .Is it >> for this day Foss was born .Community make GPL Software and >> commercial entities take benefit with simple trick .This debate shall >> continue until, we have clear idea how to defeat GPL violators. > > It is unfortunate that you have a very confused understanding of the GPL.. > >> But my view is we need to defend >> GPL.. Redhat cannot ask any body as per GPL to remove the RH name and >> logo from RHEL If it believes in GPL. then only it has right to to >> modification and combine all GPL software's as RHEL..Individual GPL >> software or Modified and clubbed software's like RHEL remains GPL >> always .RHEL is GPL individually or collectively . Roping in >> under on umbrella using anaconda or YUM does not change the GPL >> character. > > Red Hat makes it completely clear HOW to take out the Red Hat logos etc > so that the code can be complied and worked. Thereafter you are free to > do as you please. GPL does not cover trademarks. I hope you understand > the differences between copyrights, patents and trademarks. The code itself > is on GPL. The logos, the name "Red Hat" are all trademarks > belonging to > the entity called "Red Hat, Inc". FSF is very clear about the > distinction. I shall > leave it to you to be educated on the differences. > >> Fedora is a Linux based >> operating system that provides users with access to the latest free >> and open source software, in a stable, >> secure >> and easy to manage form. AS fedora is UOP of RHEL like fedora RHEL >> also is a Linux based operating >> system that provides users with access to the latest free >> and open source software, in a stable, >> secure >> and easy to manage form. Therefore RHEL is also redistributable as >> that of Fedora. > > What's "UOP of RHEL"? > >> Please refer >> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html(We maintain this free >> software definition to show clearly what must be true about a >> particular software program for it to be considered free software. >> Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the >> concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free >> beer. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, >> distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, >> it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: >> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The >> freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs >> (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.The >> freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom >> 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements >> to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). >> Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is >> free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should >> be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, >> either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone >> anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other >> things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission. > > And it is indeed the case with the code you can download from ftp.redhat.com. > >> As per >> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >> it is not necessary to seek permission from Redhat to redistribute >> RHEL as per GPL.. > > Wrong. You cannot call it Red Hat Enterprise Linux if you are distributing > it unless you are a business partner of Red Hat. > >> Briefly explained, the GPL >> allows you to copy software, the GPL allows you to distribute (sell >> or give away) that software, and the GPL grants you the right to read >> and change the source code. But the person receiving or buying the >> software from you has the same rights. And also, should you decide to >> distribute modified versions of GPL software, then you are obligated >> to put the same license on the modifications (and provide the source >> code of your modifications)there fore redhat cannot replace GPL and >> puts its own EULA.. You can actually call the GPL a viral license >> because it spreads like a virus. Herein you means it may be >> individual or company or organization).ALL Linux experts can guide me if > they can. >> >> M.S.Yatnatti > > I think you should get the advise of lawyers on this. Clearly your are > reaching out for help and I think it is best that you get guidance from > lawyers who understand GPL. I am sure you can find them in India. > > Regards. > -- > Harish Pillay [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg id: 746809E3 > fingerprint: F7F5 5CCD 25B9 FC25 303E 3DA2 0F80 27DB 7468 09E3 > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [email protected] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
