On Sat, Oct 11 2008, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD wrote:
> You feel that issue is resolved.But many other don't feel like that.
You do not mention specifically what issue it is you are talking
about, but I assume it is about Red Hat aggregating some software,
part of which is under the GPL, and other parts under various licenses,
adding trademarks to the aggregation, and distributing the result. Of
course, in such a scenario, since the mark is aggregated with the
packaged software, there is no contradiction: The mark applies to the
aggregation, not the individual parts, you you can;t take the mark and
redistribute that, but you can redistribute every other component,
under whatever name you wish. But you say some people think that this
is not the case, and actually the GPL is somehow being violated.
Who are these people who feel there is an issue to be resolved?
What are they doing about it? Why do they think that a distribution is
not an aggregation, but a derived work?
If a distribution is a derived work, which work has it been
derived from? Since there are several thousand source packages,
if the distribution is a derived work of all the source packages, it
will be impossible to distribute for anyone, because of the license
mismatches.
So do these people, who do not believe that distributions are
derived works, also think that the GNU/Linux distributions are
illegal? If not, how do they resolve this fundamental paradox?
BTW, it is not just RHEL. You can't take an official debian
release, modify it yourself, and distribute the result as Debian. You
can't take your own collection of software, put it on a CD, and call it
Debian either.
Of course, since Debian is really poor, you can get away with
stealing the mark like that, since we likely do not have the money to
sue you. But it is still illegal.
> I have noted your comment.Is it any court has resolved this issue or
> FSF has resolved this issue or Copyright Holders have resolved this
Since no one, apart from the nebulous group of people you
mention, think there is a GPL violation in the first place, of course
there has been no challenge raised.
Now, if this mysterious group of people think there is a GPL
violation, perhaps _they_ can raise this issue in court?
> issue or Red hat has filed any case against redistributing the RHEL
> and has won the case .If it was resolved issue why Linux For You
> Magzine had published a resolved issue.Redhat it self could have
> provided this in its website.Please let me know any link or URL if
> you have come across anouncing that this issue is resolved by courts
> and FSF.
Since very likely most of these people think there is no
ambiguity in Red Hat having the right to protect it';s mark, and no
ambiguity in that there is no GPL violation, they have not taken any
steps to resolve the non-ambiguity.
manoj
--
"I am, therefore I am." Akira
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
_______________________________________________
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]/
