Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote about "Trademarks, copyright licenses, the GPL and RedHat":AFAIK they are not talking about a *program*, but about several picture and text files, the name you use to call the distribution etc.
This includes their logo and name used on the software on their CDs. If you want to distribute the software, you need to remove their trademark from it.
...
Does this violate the principles of Free Software (note that I didn't say anything about the GPL license - IANAL, I'm asking if you think it hurts violates the philosophy of Free Software):
According to the GPL, I am allowed to make verbatim copies of GPLed binaries
(this this just one of the rights the GPL gives you). So that if Redhat's
installer is GPL, I am allowed to copy it, complete with the Redhat logos
in the installation process. I am also allowed to copy programs like
"redhat-config-apache" (or whatever), and the "redhat-release" package
because they are marked GPL too (at least on the Redhat 7.3 that I checked).
Without which the program doesn't work. I agree that if RedHat are the sole copyright holders of the GPL program that doesn't work without the logos, things are getting a little murky (to say the least). I don't think there is any question about the fact that if there is anyone else in the world that has copyright over the installer too, what they are doing is a GPL violation (i.e. - they have an installer that will not work with logos. They provide certain logos, which makes these logos GPL -> I can make a verbatim copy). If they are the sole copyright holders over the installer, things are a little less clear, hence the ambiguity I was referring to before.
Agreed - for programs. They don't stop you from distributing the *programs*, sources etc. All they say is that you can't distribute the distribution as a whole together with their name. You can do whatever you want with the programs subject to the licensing terms.
I don't think you are right. Surely you are not allowed to claim a certain CD came from RedHat when it didn't, and a trademark is one of things stopping you. However, RedHat seem to be of the opinion that you cannot even mention the words in regards to the CD, which appear to contradict what the trademark law says. This is misleading, which causes me much concern.
Is it different then we used to do up till now? yes, it is. But is it still Free Software? I think it is.
You certainly still get some of your freedoms.
Keeping software users rights is one thing (and a good one). Keeping RedHats right to their name is another and non related thing.
But giving them the power to dictate language is going a little too far, don't you think. Not allowing me to say that I based this CD on redhat is a little over the edge, especially since trademark laws doesn't give them that power.
I agree that where the name is embodied in the software it's not reasnoable to ask you to not distribute the binary. But as they request to change specific files in the distributions that are not programs, but rather content that carries their names I think it is reasnoable, even though it might not be convinient.
According to this reasoning, the GPL is meaningless for anything not directly part of the same binary.
Shachar
-- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/
================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
