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

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:05:17 -0700 


        
        
        
        
        
        

Dear
Mr Sankarshan,

Thanks for your response. I
did not asked you to provide me what red hat says in its websites .As
you have forwarded me the list. I need your views on the topic .Your logic.
Otherwise please don't reply.


http://www.redhat.com/legal/legal_statement.html

http://www.redhat.com/about/companyprofile/trademark/
and
http://www.redhat.com/legal/legal_statement.html#claim

http://www.redhat.com/about/contact/
..



Our main issue is how to defend GPL or Protect freedom of software. I'm not 
getting you or any body  confused on the topic. We are not discussing red hat 
as issue or questions on a vendor's product. What red hat is stating about 
trademarks is available at their websites. But how to defend GPL is not 
available. For this reason this debate is initiated on Possible GPL violations 
and Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL?. Interested contribute on the topic  
otherwise leave it .Many on the web will respond. Please note that response 
pool is very big on the web. Response pool is not the topic of discussion. Only 
discuss on the topic. According a definition  Using trademarks is sign of the 
proprietary company. Therefor red hat cannot claim trade mark on Linux if it is 
open source company and if it is only talking about defending trademarks. The 
problem is that they're abusing trademark law to prevent people from exercising 
their rights under the GPL, which as I
 know, deals with licensing of copyrighted work. Red Hat is trying to prevent 
people who do so from distributing RHEL at all, which violates GPL.
The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her name on it,(not to 
trademark it) to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the 
reputations of other maintainers. For this you don't need support of trademarks.

I mean that Red Hat  grant you the rights under GPL with one hand, but lock 
those rights with the other hand using trade mark. "Lock in" was not a good 
term, sorry! Maybe "hijack" would be more appropriate. This  "hijack" is the 
core subject which open community is discussing.

Another view :The question is: "I am really obligated to remove all their logos 
they implanted into the systems software?".Are the logo files covered by the 
GPL? Strictly speaking Red hat cannot implant them inside the GPLed systems 
software as GPL guidelines states that logo should be implanted in readily 
removable manner without affecting the system working if it is removed .. Which 
red hat has not done. It is not that you and I should do it remove the logo. It 
is duty of red hat to make trademark readily removable may be with one click 
option from RHEL if it is bothered about trade mark too much and wants become 
proprietary company instead of open source leader.

Let me try an example...
I give you "A" and say:
You can do with "A" whatever you want.(GPL Applied)
Then I say:
You cannot put "A" upside down!(Trademarks law applied on copyright not owned)

Legally speaking: "Am I granting you the right to put *A* upside down?"
Legally speaking: "Am I forbidding you to put *A* upside down?"

I think the answers are: yes for the first question, and no for the second.

The same way, when I say: "You cannot use A in *any* way!"
Legally speaking: "Am I forbidding you to use A under conditions 
*fair-use* would allow you to use A?" 
(you remove logo and then distribute in other name .You cannot put this 
restriction on user as per GPL. Red Hat  have to keep readily removable 
option..)

Maybe, legally speaking, they are not required to say "You cannot use 
this in *any* way(Total Violation of GPL), except in this, those and that 
cases". This does 
*not* mean they are taking "fair-use" away from you. You still have fair 
use. If they could forbid you to use "fair-use", it would make "fair-use" a 
quite meaningless concept!!They make a round about solution to simple solution.

I didn't think that GPL is so weak! I think  this must be a, so called, "gray 
area" or safely playing with GPL . Red hat or Redhat is simply playing with 
open community.. I don't really know what  to do about this  "hijack"   or 
"Jailing"OF GPL and how you free GPL from kidnapping or Jailing .Where 
kidnapper is Red hat .I am talking about this here , but maybe even if they 
say: "you cannot redistribute without eliminating all logos...", they also say: 
"you can copy, modify, redistribute..Double standard .Red hat is proprietary or 
Open source  or it is both. "Again, I really don't see that that are really Red 
Hat is bothered about GPL. They seem to just be using trademarks in a 
completely abnormal way as proprietary company.

Red Hat cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. 
Therefore red hat cannot make  RHEL as commercial distribution of Linux and 
trademark it. As it is not the copyright owner of GPLed software's Red hat can 
use its  products for which it has copyright ownership  and not GPL..Once it 
sells RHEL  to some body ,receiving person gets all rights under GPL including 
redistribution with source code. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the 
freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program.. If you could 
incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the 
effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too. 
A system
incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that
program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must
be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two
reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom
they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements
that they make.
The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to 
redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the 
work on any more restrictive basis.

What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to 
you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy program 
to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone 
else, as he sees fit.You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program 
commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you 
must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in 
the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in 
the GPL. These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered 
code you received in a program of your own. 

So, maybe, another view .RHEL is not illegal - it's just inconsistent with GPL 
. They do forbid you from selling modified copies of the RH distribution and at 
the same time *claim* it *is* a RH distro. And they _can_ do that, because it 
is their trademark.
There are may be some cases the law would require you to get a permission from 
RH in order to use their trademark for other than GPL like support services . 
They are just saying that in *all* does cases, you do not have this permission 
unless you are redhat business partner.
Shutting the door of RHEL is amounts to putting restrictions. And putting 
restriction that will negate any of the conditions in FSF definition of GPL is 
violation of GPL.I think it is unethical. Even if it is legal by way of trade 
mark .If this is not illegal, there is nothing we could do.

You can educate people and try to get them to understand there rights under GPL 
. Since redhat  started the "Fedora" which is not locked .RHEL is derived from 
fedora and now derived version is locked. People will laugh about dual policy 
of Red hat even though it is satisfying few at red hat .Growing popularity of 
centos is some indication to Red hat which is rebuild of RHEL .It should  open 
the eyes of red hat. Centos opened the lock put by RHEL. GPL is still partially 
 in "hijack" If RHEL put in readily removable   mechanism to remove its logo 
and make it redistributable then it will be totally free from "hijack"  or it 
need to amend its trade mark policy that RHEL is fully GPL with its logo like 
Fedora and support is available only to paid customers as it was doing earlier 
and make RHEL redistributable make red hat a truly open source company .Using 
trademarks is sign of the proprietary company. Open  source company cannot 
exists on support of
 trademarks and proprietary tactics.  

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL 
requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, 
under the GPL. The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits 
people to use and even redistribute  However, if someone pays your fee and gets 
a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or 
without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy 
on a web site for the general public. distribute the software without being 
required to pay anyone a fee for doing so. Section 2 says that modified 
versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. 
“All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to 
*do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, 
under the GPL, for your version. 
An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together 
on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute 
an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are non-free or 
GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate 
under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that each program's 
individual license would grant them.

GPL answers to commonly-asked questions about the GNU licenses. at 
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html

There are distros that are more concerned about *freedom* Like redistributable 
Live CD. Debian Centos and others which are redistributable linux distributions 
and near the the FSF  goals need more publicity . Get people to use those 
distros instead. Just the same logic for 
get people to give up on "windows" and try GNU Linux   

What is GPL and what not is GPL need to be debated in order to protect the GPL 
and freedom and FSF goals .This is not legal opinion .It is only discussion as 
Linux For You had Published the article and Delhi LUG has discussed it earlier.
M.S.Yatnatti
KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, 
Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG





      
_______________________________________________
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