> >> What it actually says is: >> ...ARE PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS OF RED HAT, INC. AND OTHERS AND >> ARE PROTECTED >> BY COPYRIGHT ... >> What it actually says is a good bit more than that and taking any individual part of it out of context does not really support your argument. Indeed that paragraph does state that the terms of the applicable EULA agreement will apply, if it is GPL it is still GPL. If you wish to deal with the "spirit" of the agreement then my interpretation of the RH page would be that they are seeking to protect their copyrighted trademarks and logos (the shadow man, the red hat etc..) the software licenses are all fairly open. Do you interpret this differently and think there is a more sinister meaning?
By the way, since you only listed the American Heritage entry from dictionary.com you missed several more interesting definitions such as: 3. (Eccl.) A monk who had reserved goods and effects to himself, notwithstanding his renunciation of all at the time of profession. from Webster's. I always thought they were code-monkeys, guess I was wrong... But more importantly I'd say the jargon file entry is more relevant: proprietary adj. 1. In marketroid-speak, superior; implies a product imbued with exclusive magic by the unmatched brilliance of the company's own hardware or software designers. 2. In the language of hackers and users, inferior; implies a product not conforming to open-systems standards, and thus one that puts the customer at the mercy of a vendor able to gouge freely on service and upgrade charges after the initial sale has locked the customer in. Often in the phrase "proprietary crap". 3. Synonym for closed-source, e.g. software issued in binary without source and under a restructive license. Since the coining of the term open source, many hackers have made a conscious effort to distinguish between `proprietary' and `commercial' software. It is possible for software to be commercial (that is, intended to make a profit for the producers) without being proprietary. The reverse is also possible, for example in binary-only freeware. Source: Jargon File 4.2.0 Perhaps its simply that lawyers don't write good code and coders don't write good laws? (and I do not mean to imply that all coders write good code or lawyers good laws). MC -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------
