On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:39:07PM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:Section 2:
I downloaded Fedora, and tried to install it on a box of mine (well - VMWare to be precise). The problem with installing it was not
technical.
Boo, real men use UML and report bugs :-)
The problem was that Fedora now includes an End User License Agreement. That's right, folks.
So?
I may be paranoid, but to me an EULA means that someone is trying to apply contract laws where copyright laws (or, in this case, Trademark laws) can't get them what they want. I don't like such behaviour.
Have you read the EULA? Assuming that it's what I can find at
http://www.klid.dk/sw/fedora/1/eula.txt, all it does is ascertain that
the relevant laws (trademark, copyright), are valid here. Seems fine
to me. Is there anything specific that you object to?
This agreement permits User to distribute unmodified copies of Software using the Fedora trademark on the condition that User follows Red Hat's trademark guidelines located at http://fedora.redhat.com/legal. User must abide by these trademark guidelines when distributing the Software, regardless of whether the Software has been modified.
In essence, I'm asked to respect the FAQ RedHat posted, whether that's according to Trademark law or not. To me, that spells restricting my rights via an EULA. Notice - "This agreement". I could have understood a statement saying "Fedora and RedHat are registered trademarks. For using these trademarks when distributing this distribution, please refer to.....". That would merely try to bring to my attention the fact that I cannot redistribute freely. This is something else. It tries to create additional binding to that existing under the trademark law.
For the impatient list readers, the opening paragraph reads:Whether their Trademark FAQ does or does not violate the GPL is another discussion, and one we have had already. I'm too tired to open that one up again (For the record - I think it does violate).
"This agreement governs the download, installation or use of the Software (as defined below) and any updates to the Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the following terms, Fedora Project grants to the user ("User") a license to this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License. By downloading, installing or using the Software, User agrees to the terms of this agreement."
While I agree that RedHat is certainly far from a care-free "happyWell, I could be paranoid about this paragraph. Then again, I have made a living from being paranoid for several years now. To me, this is a slow drift in the direction of "as proprietary as we can possibly get away with being". This is the way I read it:
hacking", they have done nothing wrong that I wouldn't possibly do in
their stead. To steal another company's motto, I haven't seen them
being evil, yet.
First they try to limit redistribution by invoking the Trademark law. That, in itself, might have been ok by me, only they seem to limit beyond what the Trademark law proper says. This spells "unenforecable" to me.
Next they seperate the desktop and the proffesional distros into different names (and trademark). I actually welcomed that. I'm not against RedHat making money from their reputation, and if a trademark is the way to do that, I would wish them the best of luck. To me, splitting Fedora from RedHat meant that "RedHat" means commercial, and "Fedora" means private. Would work for me.
Now, however, it seems that this is no longer the case. They are placing the same burdens on the Fedora trademark as they are on the RedHat trademark. They are also trying to close the problem I claimed they had before by not relying on Trademark law, and relying on contractual laws instead. While we expect such behaviour from companies who don't see copyright as strong enough, coming from a company distributing free software is disappointing.
I do for work, but I'm getting very uneasy about it.That being said, I won't play with any RedHat distribution (Fedora included) in the near future for *fun*. I certainly might for work.
You can thank big businesses for that. Take it or leave it, there isI guess. I'm just hoping (and certanly pushing) companies from keeping their money in the free software proper business. I'm feeling that abiding by these rules eliminate most of the advantages companies (read - money) buy when they invest in free software.
now a lot of money at stake.
Cheers, MuliA good friend of mine said that this is just the proof that anyone who suceeds tries to become a tyrant. I claimed that wouldn't happen with Debian. I'm not so sure now. We know that the FSF would impose a "free software only" tyrany if only they could, by making everything under the sun GPL. I am wondering what happened to "live and let live".
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]
