Warning: Long response. If you are not interested in this thread you may skip it.
2008/10/12 M.S.Yatnatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Thank you for insulting me by > your earlier posting.ButI respectfully agree to disagree that As long as some one replies, you can go on. When new issues are raised some people might come back, like I did. Or if people does not have enough time to respond the thread might dead. But I don't think anyone should force it to end as long as there is more than one persons responding to it. So many people have responded to this thread and it shows there is an interest in this topic. > topic is at dead end. Many groups are discussing . If you don't want > to discuss please leave us peacefully.. Many time people end and > issued remained. Many unresolved issued are their in FLOSS.And also I Exactly. Even though this might not be an issue "per say" for the community. Increasing use of trademarks by increasing number of projects in increasing restriction is a concern. Even though I understand the importance of protecting trademarks, some of the trademarks policies does not seem to be in line with best of the Free Software community. > want make you small advise because I might be or may not elder to > you. I am fifty year old and debated a lot .i have less English > knowledge than you. Excuse me for this. Is public list are meant for > insulting each other. You have publicly insulted me on this list , > threatened me and my websites .Today you have come on polite note Dear sir, in the Free Software community many of of us are passionate about what we say and what we do, so many a times the discussions go heated and even to the level of personal attacks. It is sad but a fact about this community. This is also one of the strength of the community - to have people who have all kinds of opinions and priorities but come together on issues which are shared by them and still keeping the differences. Many a times people are responding to issues and not to people who writing it - at least that is what happens with me most of the times. > advising abcde topics . Can you sincerely tell me Who has > authorized you to insult me like that. Are you acting on behalf of > red hat .Please let me know that .Are you employee of red hat .Please > let me know .Public list and your insult and on your insult many > others had insulted and made big fun of this topic. This pained me a > lot. You should not have done this. On public list discuss the topic > with giving respect to others .This kind of arm twisting never helps But as said earlier, members of the community have different goals, priorities, attitudes, communication skills and tolerance levels. > Linux community. Just because I discuss a topic nothing will happen > to red hat. I still remain a great fan of red hat and accepting the > the fact that i was not able to convince the leader of open source on > the pitfalls of dual policy. Keeping two legs on two different ships > will damage the entity. Red hat should not become victim of keeping > its leg on two ships. > Actually I am red Hat fan .I am pained It is understandable. The problem is you are not clear about the issues you are trying to raise and mix up many issues in a way that does not make sense. > because of their dual policy. One for fedora and one for RHEL I have > used red hat version 5.2 6.2 7.2 7.3 8 9 and Fedora 1-9 and white box > centos debain koppix etc.I have very little knowledge about GPL. From Thanks for your support to Free Software for such a long time and I appreciate your interest in learning about the GPL. > the last ten years I am reader of PC Quest and recently Linux for you > .The article published in Linux for you made me think very seriously > that some thing is very much wrong .Either red hat is correct or GPL > is insufficient to tackle the threat of trade mark. The fedora is The problem is very much there - that of trademarks trying to restrict Free Software. But mostly it is an irritation and not an actual restriction. Take the example of Mozilla Firefox, it is an irritation that Debian cannot distribute "Mozilla Firefox", because of the trademark policy of Mozilla. But it is not a big problem as they are able to ship the same software as "Ice Weasel". In the same way it is seriously an irritation not to be able to redistribute RHEL, but as CentOS is readily available it is less of a problem. I hope in the long run the Free Software community would be the winners when more browsers come to the place -- like the recent entry of Chrome -- and CentOS popularity increases. If more people start using CentOS and people start giving commercial support to CentOS, Red Hat would have to seriously rethink about its trademark policies. I see a business opportunity here. Start supporting CentOS commercially and give customers full Freedom without trademark restrictions. Currently not many use the trademarks in much restrictive ways but if other projects start following Firefox and RHEL it would become a serious irritation - still not a danger -- to the community. > distributable in unmodified form .RHEL is made or derived out of > Fedora and same license need to be followed (BASICS OF GPL TELLS > THIS) But RHEL has different Trademark policy. Why this dual policy. > Earlier red hat was one distribution. It was redistributable .Many > books were publishing that with CD. Red hat charging fees for > support. Up to this was fine .2003 it abruptly stopped red hat and > started RHEL.. And after some time started fedora. Fedora has GPL > redistributable unmodified distribution. RHEL GPL non distributable. I think even Red Hat admits the splitting of RHEL and Fedora was a mistake -- at least they were not able to communicate it well with the community. I remember Fedora project lead admitting this while he was in Bangalore. The unhappiness with Red Hat has helped Ubuntu and other distributions to gain more users at the cost of Fedora. If Red Hat is not learning from its mistakes, we can't help it much. There has been very clear explanations by Manoj Srivastava about distrubution being aggregate rather than derivative works. Please read his mail carefully. If RHEL were a derivative work as you are saying. They would not have been able to distribute it all. Same with all GNU/Linux distributions. Since a GNU/Linux distribution contains code that is under so many different Free Software license of which many of them are incompatible with each other. And all your reasoning would be baseless. A GNU/Linux __cannot__ be a derivative work of its components. If you agree RHEL is an aggregate, your point of RHEL violating GPL becomes false, as GPL does not impose any restrictions on aggregate, other than guaranteeing the Freedoms of individual components are in tact. > Total RHEL which is distributed in CD is commercial .No body can > distribute the CD as a Linux distribution Reason is it is Commercial or Non Commercial is a no issue to Free Software. We distinguish between Free and Non-Free software. > commercially distributed by red hat. Red hat says that buyer will > get confused. Please note that no body get confused as every buyer of > CD knows that he is buying CD which is GPL and GPL does not give > support and for support definitely they go for supporting companies. There is no requirement for Red Hat to make RHEL (the aggregate) GPL, and even if there were, it would be legally impossible to make RHEL GPL. > Any body might pay Rs 50 or Rs 100 for Linux distribution CD. Buyer > knows that he is buying GPL version without any support. But the fact > that inside all GPL packages are redistributable and individual > packaged does not give any guarantee of support as GPL does not give > any guarantees to user. Now Confusion is every were .Fedora GPL and You cannot make a distribution if it were a derivative work of the components rather than aggregate. > RHEL Commercial .In mean while Linux Trade Mark of Linux creator > Linus Thorvald. But see the fun .Red hat uses Linux Trade Mark .Only Linus Tolvalds own the trademark to Linux and he gives a license to every GNU/Linux distribution license to use this trademark. There is nothing wrong with Red Hat or any other distribution using Linux trademark. > want to money for its red hat marks. Linux Kernel is GPL and several > thousand applications are GNU GPL. But even does not care to put > penguin mark. Earlier versions penguin was there. Please not that > Linux creator Linus Thorvald has trade marked Linux but kept in > public domain. As Linux is and forever GPL..Let the red hat also be Linux trademark is not in public domain. He has given permission to all distributions to use that mark. And this trademark license is independent of it being GPL. As long as the software is Free Software we are OK to have some irritation with Trademarks. It is a compromise that only affects the name (or brand) - everything else remains the __same__ > in like that. Today fedora is community Linux distribution and > community is supporting as it did for red hat for several years. > Please not that dual policies of red hat are creating lot of > confusion. When we call fedora community distribution and RHEL is > based on this version ,logic says that RHEL simply extend GPL in > RHEL. Fedora cannot be GPL. and your point is moot. > Finally RHEL is commercial. Red Hat is > corporate company. If suppose tomorrow the commercial mangers of the > company after seeing the market of Linux growing in fedora may decide > that fedora is sold to some one else and they have the same trade > mark policy of RHEL then open community will be in vacuum. Please Some new CentOS will come and community will move on. > note that Fedora is trade mark property of Red hat. It can sell to > any body. So? > Because of growing popularity of Linux > many commercial ventures are taking shape with big money and arm > twisting tactics and they will twist the GPL to their advantage .Many I would agree to this comment that many companies are trying to evade GPL like Tivo. But when such things happen our community responds to such threats like we did it for GPL v3. > well paid lawyers will make the life of GPL miserable. > I am fan of Red Hat .A great open > source company .i am pained by their dual policy. One for fedora and > one for RHEL. Red hat one mistake can take open source bleeding. I > have nothing personal against any body..Let us support red hat , you > and me and all and make them realize that , one policy is makes red > hat a transparent .Otherwise commercial groups taking advantage of > RED hat dual policy and they will give such big blow that FOSS will > tatter under their attack. One thing you can do is promote CentOS and if CentOS becomes popular Red Hat would be forced to change their policies. > I am agreeable to discuss the topic > what you mentioned on GPL Copyrights and trademarks and learn them > . But under the same topic .It make sense that a burning topic > already published Linux For You Magzine and many people express their > views and finally prepare a draft paper submit it to Redhat and > Linux for you and FSF and National law University for debate. Leave > the out come to public. You and I cannot do anything . > > I am follower of Ghnadiji .You hit on > my face one side I shall offer you second side of my face .I am least > bothered about your insult. Even red hat believes in Gandhigiri. > Please see the red hat movie truth happens. Jeethe rahu munnabhai is > best film. > M.S.Yatnatti Licenses, Trademarks and Patents are a complex issue. I feel there is a legitimate concern for many in the community that people are starting to use trademarks in ways that does not follow the spirit of the Free Software. Even though the original poster was unable to express some of the concerns clearly, there has been excellent responses in this thread that helped clear some of the related doubts. Cheers Praveen -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now! http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign _______________________________________________ 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]/
