Nadav Har'El wrote on 2003-08-19: > > >On Sun, Aug 03, 2003, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > > >>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): > > Richard Stallman just said something about this issue in an interview in > "open for business" (whatever that is...). See > http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=260 > > A relevant partial quote: > > Q: ... MandrakeSoft's Multi-Network Firewall is based on entirely Free > Software, however the Mandrake branding itself is placed under a more > restrictive license (you can't redistribute it for a fee). This give the > user or consultant two choices -- use the software under the more > restrictive licensing or remove the Mandrake artwork. What are your > thoughts on this type or approach? > > RMS: I think it is legitimate. Freedom to redistribute and change software > is a human right that must be protected, but the commercial use of a logo > is a very different matter. Provided that removing the logo from the > software is easy to do in practice, the requirement to pay for use of the > logo does not stain the free status of the software itself. > If it's legitimate, I guess it's time for a "<something> is not Red Hat" distro (but probably under a name that doesn't include "Red Hat"). Is there such brandotomized version of RH anywhere for download?
RMS' note only says it's legitimate in proncople but doesn't answer two technical details: 1. Red Hat want us to not even mention it's based on them. I want a legitimate way to give them credit. If the world agrees on a single name for the "is not Red Hat" distro, and everybody will know it's origin, this problem goes away. 2. Red Hat files say the distro as a collective work is licensed under the GPL. Is it legal for them to distribute ISO images including logos that you are not allowed to freely redistribute? Do the ISO images fall under GPL's definition of binaries? Are they subject to the excempt for "mere aggregation"? -- Beni Cherniavsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ================================================================= 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]
