Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India

Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:56:25 -0700 


        
        
        
        
        
        

Dear Karanji,I don't understand why you want suppress the open voices  .Do you 
think that only few people have eligibility to talk on the subject.Others have 
no authority to discuss any thing.If LUG has any predefined regulations let me 
know.Really I don't know that if any body comes with any question at LUG you 
ask him to go to lawyer. Even I don't know good English,I don't know your 
posting styles . Do you Immediately  through me out of discussion.or You call 
me fool or troll if I have question.You don't reply some one else internet will 
reply.  If you think it is waste of time please don't reply. I shall post this 
question directly to Linux for you or some where else on internet .I don't fear 
to ask question.Some one on internet will reply me.Please dont bother too 
much.If ILUG D tells me i will opt out from this list.In any case i will learn  
posting styles and improve my english.
My research on the GPL in regards with  trademarks in respect to the question 
is this. 
Please read the link carefully
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
There are  Three paragraphs under the caption Trademarks and they are
very clear and they are  part of Guidelines for Free System
Distributions and not guide lines for making commercial distribution
or a proprietary OS out of GPLed software .Please make note of this
point .Please note that you cannot make commercial distribution out
of  Guidelines for Free System Distributions .These guidelines  don't
tell you  violate  freedom given at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html .It states  that
Similarly, the distribution itself may hold particular trademarks. It
is not a problem for these marks to be in the distribution, as long
as they can be readily removed without losing the system's
functionality. It means that let RHEL provide menu in the system
itself that with click of mouse trade mark can be removed  readily 
without affecting  system's functionality and user can use it and
distribute it. You cannot ask user to do it. It says readily means
readily users should be able to remove it. Because paragraph two says
 In extreme cases, these restrictions may effectively render the
program non free .It is unfair for someone to ask you to remove a
trademark from modified code if that trademark is scattered all
throughout the original source. As long as the conditions are
reasonable, however, free system distributions may include
these programs, either with or without the trademarks. But you cannot
use trademarks to make system non-free as per GPL. Holding the
trademark is different and  however, free system distributions may
include these programs, either with or without the trademarks. but
redhat  making RHEL  non free and commercial is different. which I
feel is the violation of GPL in two counts one at 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
and 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html.
  That is not allowing redistribution  and making commercial
distribution RHEL using all GPLed software violating  Guidelines for
Free System Distributions. These are my views .may be correct may not
be .Let us debate with cool and find out the real outcome.
Immediately jumping to conclusions is not my way of thinking. This is
only a debate. 

M.S.Yatnatti





KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, 
Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG

--- On Sun, 10/5/08, Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Karanbir Singh <[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: Sunday, October 5, 2008, 3:55 AM

M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD 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).

Mr Yatnatti, if you feel so strongly about an issue you dont either 
understand, not have done any research on, I would highly recommend you 
speak to a laywer and take the matter to court. Ranting on a list about 
what you envisage is a GPL violation isnt going to help at all.

Also, I've stayed away from this conversation so far as a matter of 
interest. However, this is just getting silly. I think Sudhanwa hit the 
nail on the head with his post. Yatnatti does not know or comprehend the 
difference between Copyright, Trademark, Licensing or the ethos of Open 
Source.

Disclaimer: I am a member of the CentOS Devteam
-- 
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/
GnuPG Public Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

_______________________________________________
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]/



      
_______________________________________________
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]/


























					Reply via email to