Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Dear Praveen ,Thank you for your inputs. My study will continue on the question Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL?.and even I shall meet and seek inputs from redhat people and get educated on the subject. I have attended several redhat presentations earlier at Bangalore. I have seen their movie truth happens. For GPL also truth happens.First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. It has become complex issue ,but need to be made simple.I have studied two views about this issue .I will study the issues in depth by online research and attending the redhat confrences and meeting FOSS leaders.i am collected lot of divergent views on the subject.i shall compile them and then leave it to the FOSS world to debate and decide. Two views : 1 We don't need GPL any more 2 .No GPL is strong .It cannot be fooled. Recently, during FISL (Fórum Internacional de Software Livre) in Brazil, Eric Raymond gave a keynote speech about the open source model of development in which he said, We don't need the GPL anymore. It's based on the belief that open source software is weak and needs to be protected. Open source would be succeeding faster if the GPL didn't make lots of people nervous about adopting it. Federico Biancuzzi decided to interview Eric Raymond to learn more about that.It is available at http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html Part of Interview extract i quote here. I believe they make their real money on a product (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) that is completely GPLed. If you know differently, can you tell me what other licenses they are using? It seems that Red Hat is selling its GNU/Linux distribution under a sort of user license that limits the freedom No. 2 provided by the GPL. The short version of the story, as I was told, is that if I buy a CD/DVD with the last Red Hat version and I make an ISO from that and put that online, I'll get sued. The same thing happens with computer magazines. They cannot include any Red Hat CD because the term Red Hat is a trademark or something like that, and they don't let the magazine use it without permission. And obviously they don't give you that permission. Magazines must use Fedora and never say Red Hat. Excuse me while I fire up a browser and research this a bit... Ahhh... right, if you republish a RHEL CD in either form, you could get sued for illegal use of the embedded trademarks. I think I just found the user license in question. So the answer to your question is yes... Red Hat is a demonstration that you can have a profitable business based on entirely GPL code. You may have to play some interesting tricks with trademark law to do it, though. As I understand it now, what Red Hat has done is legally blocked republication of its entire RHEL distribution even though any component part is still GPLed and therefore freely redistributable. Damn, that's clever and sneaky. I like it. It serves everybody: Red Hat gets a fence around its product, but all the community objectives of open source licensing are still met. Few of others have quoted the following: The fact that code will be GPLed thanks to the virality clause as you sum it up does not imply any type of rights grant to other types of Intellectual Property (IP) contained in the module, notably trademarks. A piece of code may very well be under GPL (think Redhat distribution), but still not distributable as such with the trademark RedHat all over the place, because it would constitute trademark infrigement (which is why Redhat clones carefully remove the RedHat brand from their distros). Which means that redistributing some of this GPLed code may still need some work around the other types of IP protection like CENTOS is REbuild of RHEL. Few others quote: No GPL is strong .It cannot be fooled.: GPL is strong. No body can play any tricks with GPL. No body can limit the freedoms given by GPL. No body can create proprietary systems using GPLed software's . Trademark's can be used by any company only where it owns the property in which it has its own Copyrights. Linux and GPLed software's are copyrights not owned by Redhat .RHEL is a Linux distribution .As long as Linux is in the distribution RHEL is redistributable. Redhat cannot legally enforce its trademark's in RHEL. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis .Redhat has insulted the Linux community by removing penguin trademark's of Linux in RHEL. By providing consultancy service and support redhat can earn money as many others are doing. In pursuit of money some one cannot be allowed to limit the GPL freedoms. You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. FSF and GPL cannot be fooled like this.The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
I believe that Mr. Yatnatti's arguments on this topic are very much relevant and definitely *not* a troll. His communication style might not please everyone though. :) That said, for all the questions I had raised some weeks back against Redhat's ambiguous distribution policy, this thread by him and many other text have changed my perception of Redhat's distribution policy. I don't believe they are in violation of GPL, in fact they are using a unique combination of GPL and trademark law to accommodate, in their own way, both community and commercial interests. You can debate endlessly about your intepretation of the spirit of GPL but at least its words are not being violated. You, of course, cannot put up Redhat's ISOs for download on bittorrent, but their trademark is only on the distribution of a few of the Redhat specific packages and not on its other components, which can be freely distributed and therefore satisfy the Free Software distribution guidelines. In fact, if you check this CentOs page, all the Redhat software source is freely available: http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=2. The Redhat specific packages which are non-free because of Redhat's trademark restrictions are made Free software by CentOS (by removing the trademarks) and can then be freely redistributed. Mr. Yatnatti might be confusing software freedom with GPL or even FSF. GPL/FSF are not the only representatives of free software, even though they are its most prominent leaders. There are other interpretations of software freedom too, some not always agreed by all the proponents of the software freedom movement. In fact, Debian has probably an even more stringent definition of freedom. By it's parameters, probably the RHL distribution would fail the freedom guidelines just like various mozilla foundation software like Firefox and Thunderbird have failed. That doesn't mean that Firefox and Mozilla are not free software. It just means that they fail someone else's (in this case Debian's) expectation of freedom. Another frequent clash of interpretation of freedom is between the BSD and the Linux+GPL community. Nobody is wrong in their expectations - they are just different ideas of what the software world should be. So I am not sure whether you will ever succeed in convincing other's about Redhat's violation of GPL terms. They follow it to the T. They might not satisfy *your* idea of what software freedom should be but they are satisfying GPL's idea of freedom, and therefore they are not doing anything illegal. - Sandip ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
2008/10/4 M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD [EMAIL PROTECTED]: My research on the GPL in regards with trademarks in respect to the question is this. Please read the link carefully http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html There are Three paragraphs under the caption Trademarks and they are very clear and they are part of Guidelines for Free System Distributions and not guide lines for making commercial distribution or a proprietary OS out of GPLed software .Please make note of this point .Please note that you cannot make commercial distribution out of Guidelines for Free System Distributions .These guidelines don't I would suggest you to read the GPL itself fully. Section 5 says http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an aggregate if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. RHEL is an aggregation of GPL software. As long as the aggregate license does not restricts the rights granted to individual components under GPL, the aggregate itself does not have to be GPL. tell you violate freedom given at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html .It states that Similarly, the distribution itself may hold particular trademarks. It is not a problem for these marks to be in the distribution, as long as they can be readily removed without losing the system's functionality. It means that let RHEL provide menu in the system itself that with click of mouse trade mark can be removed readily without affecting system's functionality and user can use it and distribute it. You cannot ask user to do it. It says readily means readily users should be able to remove it. Because paragraph two says In extreme cases, these restrictions may effectively render the program non free .It is unfair for someone to ask you to remove a trademark from modified code if that trademark is scattered all throughout the original source. As long as the conditions are reasonable, however, free system distributions may include these programs, either with or without the trademarks. But you cannot use trademarks to make system non-free as per GPL. Holding the trademark is different and however, free system distributions may include these programs, either with or without the trademarks. but redhat making RHEL non free and commercial is different. which I feel is the violation of GPL in two counts one at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html. That is not allowing redistribution and making commercial distribution RHEL using all GPLed software violating Guidelines for A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program can be free or non-free, depending on its license. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or non-free, depending on its license. The two questions, what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have, are independent. Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage it. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial Selling support is a way of making money from Free Software. Are you implying that only people creating proprietary software needs to get paid? We are not talking about Free Beer here. Here you have two complaints about RHEL 1) It does not allow redistribution Existence of CentOS is a clear indication that your assumption is false. 2) RHEL is a commercial distribution There is nothing wrong with that, on the contrary it is encouraged. I get the issue. You have a dilemma 1) I don't want to pay money to Red Hat 2) I want to get full support from Red Hat You can't have both at the same time, because you have to pay Red Hat to get full support. But if you don't care about support, what is stopping you from using CentOS? -- 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 -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Is there really any point in wasting time responding to an (ill-informed) troll? Like a fire, the more you feed it the larger it gets. It's obvious the OP either doesn't have and want to have the simplest basic grasp of licences and trademarks, or he does and is deliberately confusing facts out of sheer bloody-mindedness. Anyway, I wish you folks luck in your endeavour to determine the outcome of the juxtaposition of the immovable object and the irresistible force :) Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Dear Praveen, You have assumed the questions on my behalf .BUT I will frame my questions in few days.Hope fully you will be able to reply. .After that i conclude my discussion. I know that Redhat is open source leader and it will go beyond GPL and it is acording to them Redhat is not violating GPL as many of persons have posted reply to me collectively and individually. Even i am doing research on internet and read many times the article published by Linux For You.the article title is : Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL?.Published in september 2008. I am very much thankful for your meaningful and cool discussion.But I respectfully differ to your meaning of RHEL is an aggregation of GPL software. As long as the aggregate license does not restricts the rights granted to individual components under GPL, the aggregate itself does not have to be GPL... Please read the following and then you reply.I really appreciate how cool way you have replied and i am able to understand your explaination though i may differ.i respectfully read every sentence of yours.After reading please reply even if you differ on my explaination.After reading your post i visted all the website you gave me the link and studied the content.Still i have to improve and yet implement the posting style.But i learn very shortly. This is my reply; I would suggest you to read the GPL itself fully once more. Section 5 says http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an aggregate if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. The above paragraph is self explanatory. But I respectfully differ on to your meaning of aggregation. My Meaning of aggregation :In any Linux distribution compilation is called an aggregation of GPL software(covered work) and separate and independent works (Linux Based Commercial non GPL Software). Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate means other separate and independent works . other separate and independent works means any other commercial Linux based software included in the distribution does not have to be GPL..With Regards . M.S.Yatnatti ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
2008/10/5 M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You.the article title is : Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL?.Published in september 2008. CentOS redistribute RHEL, but with a different name. This is exactly similar to Debian distributing Firefox with a different name (Ice Weasel). Even though Debian calls it Ice Weasel, it is still Firefox, except for the name (and some small changes to use some dependencies from debian repo instead of a copy that comes with firefox). Oracle also redistribute RHEL http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/index.html I am very much thankful for your meaningful and cool discussion.But I respectfully differ to your meaning of RHEL is an aggregation of GPL So do you think RHEL is a derivative work? If so tell us your definition of derivative work. A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an aggregate if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. The above paragraph is self explanatory. But I respectfully differ on to your meaning of aggregation. This clearly shows you have not read the GPL even once, even after I requested you to read, and quoted a relevant section directly from it.That was not my meaning of aggregation. That is the definition of aggregate work that GPL itself understands. My Meaning of aggregation :In any Linux distribution compilation is called an aggregation of GPL software(covered work) and separate and independent works (Linux Based Commercial non GPL Software). Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate means other separate and independent works . other separate and independent works means any other commercial Linux based software included in the distribution does not have to be GPL..With Regards . I respect you have a different meaning of aggregation. But it does not matter as far as GPL is concerned. The authors of GPL have clearly defined what an aggregate means and what are the requirements needed to include a covered work under GPL. There is nothing you can do about it. What you can do is to write a new license (please call it a different name and not confuse it with GPL) with your meaning of aggregation. And release any code you hold copyright to with that license. But I would request you not to create another license and make it impossible for people to use code from one project in another. Even if Red Hat did violate GPL, you cannot do anything about it as long as they are not violating code that you hold copyright. Still if you believe Red Hat violated GPL, you can inform the authors of any of the GPL covered program that Red Hat includes about it. That is all you can do. But you can't expect this kind of spoon feeding or coolness from them. So as a conclusion you have two choices, 1) Write to any or all of copyright holders of GPL programs Red Hat distributes and forget about it. 2) Just forget about it and move on. Thanks a lot for listening. With this I'm concluding my participation in this thread. I appreciate you keenness in learning. I understand it is a complex issue and many things are not obvious as it looks. It was a learning for me too. Wish you good luck. 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 -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
2008/10/3 M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dear Praveen, Thank you for participating in the debate.Are you educating the open FOSS community that any body can club all individual GPL software into one Mega software collection under one umbrella using anaconda or Yum which is also GPL and make non-free commercial software=RHEL . Still We are not against commercial software (did you mean proprietary, which it clearly is not) or against making money. On the contrary what Free Software foundations says about selling Free Software is Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html simple club all GPL = non free commercial .Please educate me .Is it for this day Foss was born .Community make GPL Software and commercial entities take benefit with simple trick .This debate shall continue until, we have clear idea how to defeat GPL violators. Are you talking about Red Hat here? Can you give an example of Red Hat's GPL violation? Any GPL software that Red Hat distributes without adhering to GPL? M.S.Yatnatti Free Software Foundation has a guideline for evaluating Freeness of a distribution http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html And bits about trademarks say Similarly, the distribution itself may hold particular trademarks. It is not a problem for these marks to be in the distribution, as long as they can readily be removed without losing the system's functionality. I believe RHEL trademarks fall under these category. CentOS is a best example of doing exactly this. -- 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 -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Dear Shantanu Goel, Thank you and I respect your debating skills. This is debate happening. You all are experts can guide your fellow Linux users. Praveen,is teaching the open FOSS community that any body can club all individual GPL software into one Mega software collection under one umbrella using anaconda or Yum which is also GPL and make non-free commercial software=RHEL . Still simple club all GPL = non free commercial .Please educate me .Is it for this day Foss was born .Community make GPL Software and commercial entities take benefit with simple trick .This debate shall continue until, we have clear idea how to defeat GPL violators. But my view is we need to defend GPL.. Redhat cannot ask any body as per GPL to remove the RH name and logo from RHEL If it believes in GPL. then only it has right to to modification and combine all GPL software's as RHEL..Individual GPL software or Modified and clubbed software's like RHEL remains GPL always .RHEL is GPL individually or collectively . Roping in under on umbrella using anaconda or YUM does not change the GPL character. Fedora is a Linux based operating system that provides users with access to the latest free and open source software, in a stable, secure and easy to manage form. AS fedora is UOP of RHEL like fedora RHEL also is a Linux based operating system that provides users with access to the latest free and open source software, in a stable, secure and easy to manage form. Therefore RHEL is also redistributable as that of Fedora. Please refer http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html(We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software. Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission. As per http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html it is not necessary to seek permission from Redhat to redistribute RHEL as per GPL.. Briefly explained, the GPL allows you to copy software, the GPL allows you to distribute (sell or give away) that software, and the GPL grants you the right to read and change the source code. But the person receiving or buying the software from you has the same rights. And also, should you decide to distribute modified versions of GPL software, then you are obligated to put the same license on the modifications (and provide the source code of your modifications)there fore redhat cannot replace GPL and puts its own EULA.. You can actually call the GPL a viral license because it spreads like a virus. Herein you means it may be individual or company or organization).ALL Linux experts can guide me if they can. M.S.Yatnatti KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG --- On Sat, 10/4/08, Mehul Ved [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mehul Ved [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India To: The Linux-Delhi mailing list ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org Date: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 12:56 AM On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:18 PM, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Praveen, Dear Sir, Thank you for participating in the debate.Are you educating the open FOSS community that any body can club all individual GPL software into one Mega software collection under one umbrella using anaconda or Yum which is also GPL and make non-free commercial software=RHEL . Still simple club all GPL = non free commercial .Please educate me .Is it for this day Foss was born .Community make GPL Software and commercial entities take benefit with simple trick .This debate shall continue until, we have clear idea how to defeat GPL violators. Please tell me, where does CentOS come from? ___ ilugd mailinglist
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Yatnatti - Hi. I cannot help but be bewildered by your discussions on the legality of distributing Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat (note the two words), puts every bit of code out on GPL. In fact, Red Hat goes above and beyond the minimum needed for compliance with the GPL by placing all the source (patched and updated) for free download [GPL only requires the provider to povide a link to the original source and full source of their patches]. This is debate happening. You all are experts can guide your fellow Linux users. Praveen,is teaching the open FOSS community that any body can club all individual GPL software into one Mega software collection under one umbrella using anaconda or Yum which is also GPL and make non-free commercial software=RHEL . Not sure what you mean here. Still simple club all GPL = non free commercial .Please educate me .Is it for this day Foss was born .Community make GPL Software and commercial entities take benefit with simple trick .This debate shall continue until, we have clear idea how to defeat GPL violators. It is unfortunate that you have a very confused understanding of the GPL.. But my view is we need to defend GPL.. Redhat cannot ask any body as per GPL to remove the RH name and logo from RHEL If it believes in GPL. then only it has right to to modification and combine all GPL software's as RHEL..Individual GPL software or Modified and clubbed software's like RHEL remains GPL always .RHEL is GPL individually or collectively . Roping in under on umbrella using anaconda or YUM does not change the GPL character. Red Hat makes it completely clear HOW to take out the Red Hat logos etc so that the code can be complied and worked. Thereafter you are free to do as you please. GPL does not cover trademarks. I hope you understand the differences between copyrights, patents and trademarks. The code itself is on GPL. The logos, the name Red Hat are all trademarks belonging to the entity called Red Hat, Inc. FSF is very clear about the distinction. I shall leave it to you to be educated on the differences. Fedora is a Linux based operating system that provides users with access to the latest free and open source software, in a stable, secure and easy to manage form. AS fedora is UOP of RHEL like fedora RHEL also is a Linux based operating system that provides users with access to the latest free and open source software, in a stable, secure and easy to manage form. Therefore RHEL is also redistributable as that of Fedora. What's UOP of RHEL? Please refer http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html(We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software. Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission. And it is indeed the case with the code you can download from ftp.redhat.com. As per http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html it is not necessary to seek permission from Redhat to redistribute RHEL as per GPL.. Wrong. You cannot call it Red Hat Enterprise Linux if you are distributing it unless you are a business partner of Red Hat. Briefly explained, the GPL allows you to copy software, the GPL allows you to distribute (sell or give away) that software, and the GPL grants you the right to read and change the source code. But the person receiving or buying the software from you has the same rights. And also, should you decide to distribute modified versions of GPL software, then you are obligated to put the same license on the modifications (and provide the source code of your modifications)there fore redhat cannot replace GPL and puts its own EULA.. You can actually call the GPL a viral license because it spreads like a virus. Herein you means it may be individual or company or organization).ALL Linux experts can guide me if they
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Hi All on ILugD, Praveen, Sudhanwa, Shantz, Harish, et al, Guys, this guy is a troll-- dont feed the troll. After making my post I saw his websites--- and googled around--- and saw that the OP is a troll of the worst kind-- see his websites and even you guys will realize that. He has even included a detailed explanation on one of his websites about CentOS and CentOS versus RedHat-- so surely, this post to our ilugd list was totally unnecessary except for being his own way of getting cheap thrills and free publicity. This guy even owns a server in the US which his company uses. I suggest we avoid feeding the troll-- except to include his URL and point out that he's a troll. Suggest even you google around. Am tempted to tell this fellow not to insult our collective intelligence; but I think we ourselves should see his antecedents--- and decide whether feeding trolls is high on our priority list. Also Regards, NS ps: MSY-- you know what you are doing-- and if you do something positive instead of that-- this community will welcome you- STOP TROLLING. On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Harish Pillay [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Yatnatti - Hi. I cannot help but be bewildered by your discussions on the legality of distributing Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat (note the snip ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Dear Harish PIllay I am educating myself about four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software as per GPL .Freedom number two Redhat does not want to give user for RHEL Linux Distribution .The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom 2). Please refer http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.htmlFree software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.To read this much i don't need any lawyer.Thanks for your inputs in discussion . M.S.Yatnatti KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG --- On Sat, 10/4/08, Harish Pillay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Harish Pillay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India To: The Linux-Delhi mailing list ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org Date: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 1:08 PM Yatnatti - Hi. I cannot help but be bewildered by your discussions on the legality of distributing Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat (note the two words), puts every bit of code out on GPL. In fact, Red Hat goes above and beyond the minimum needed for compliance with the GPL by placing all the source (patched and updated) for free download [GPL only requires the provider to povide a link to the original source and full source of their patches]. This is debate happening. You all are experts can guide your fellow Linux users. Praveen,is teaching the open FOSS community that any body can club all individual GPL software into one Mega software collection under one umbrella using anaconda or Yum which is also GPL and make non-free commercial software=RHEL . Not sure what you mean here. Still simple club all GPL = non free commercial .Please educate me .Is it for this day Foss was born .Community make GPL Software and commercial entities take benefit with simple trick .This debate shall continue until, we have clear idea how to defeat GPL violators. It is unfortunate that you have a very confused understanding of the GPL.. But my view is we need to defend GPL.. Redhat cannot ask any body as per GPL to remove the RH name and logo from RHEL If it believes in GPL. then only it has right to to modification and combine all GPL software's as RHEL..Individual GPL software or Modified and clubbed software's like RHEL remains GPL always .RHEL is GPL individually or collectively . Roping in under on umbrella using anaconda or YUM does not change the GPL character. Red Hat makes it completely clear HOW to take out the Red Hat logos etc so that the code can be complied and worked. Thereafter you are free to do as you please. GPL does not cover trademarks. I hope you understand the differences between copyrights, patents and trademarks. The code itself is on GPL. The logos, the name Red Hat are all trademarks belonging to the entity called Red Hat, Inc. FSF is very clear about the distinction. I shall leave it to you to be educated on the differences. Fedora is a Linux based operating system that provides users with access to the latest free and open source software, in a stable, secure and easy to manage form. AS fedora is UOP of RHEL like fedora RHEL also is a Linux based operating system that provides users with access to the latest free and open source software, in a stable, secure and easy to manage form. Therefore RHEL is also redistributable as that of Fedora. What's UOP of RHEL? Please refer http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html(We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software. Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Free software
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Hi, I assume that MSY is a troll but still going ahead and adding in the thread as the discussion is useful for many people who are not so clear about this whole thing. MSY, Please understand the difference between Trade Marks, software licenses, Free software , commercial software, proprietory software. Looks like you have very clear misunderstanding of the terms and you need a legal advice about these terms. So, instead of sending some junk messages on the list, please get in touch with a legal advisor. Some points for you to seek more knowledge are: RHEL does not violate GPL RHEL is different than Fedora GPL v2 is different than GPL v3. Read GPL v3 for trademark and other related matters. As I remember, RHEL is not under GPL v3. If you want, you can BUY a box pack of RHEL which contains the source code also. and if you have the capabilities, remove all the RH trademarks and other such stuff and make a modified distro out of it. That modified can not be called RHEL as it will not have any TM of RH. All the best to you for that efforts of hacking RHEL. And all the best wishes and my moral support to your legal advisor !! /me signing off from this thread. Regards -Sudhanwa ps: this top posting is done knowingly. On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:25 PM, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Harish PIllay I am educating myself about four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software as per GPL .Freedom number two Redhat does not want to give user for RHEL Linux Distribution .The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom 2). Please refer http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.htmlFree software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.To read this much i don't need any lawyer.Thanks for your inputs in discussion . M.S.Yatnatti KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG --- On Sat, 10/4/08, Harish Pillay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Harish Pillay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India To: The Linux-Delhi mailing list ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org Date: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 1:08 PM Yatnatti - Hi. I cannot help but be bewildered by your discussions on the legality of distributing Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat (note the two words), puts every bit of code out on GPL. In fact, Red Hat goes above and beyond the minimum needed for compliance with the GPL by placing all the source (patched and updated) for free download [GPL only requires the provider to povide a link to the original source and full source of their patches]. This is debate happening. You all are experts can guide your fellow Linux users. Praveen,is teaching the open FOSS community that any body can club all individual GPL software into one Mega software collection under one umbrella using anaconda or Yum which is also GPL and make non-free commercial software=RHEL . Not sure what you mean here. Still simple club all GPL = non free commercial .Please educate me .Is it for this day Foss was born .Community make GPL Software and commercial entities take benefit with simple trick .This debate shall continue until, we have clear idea how to defeat GPL violators. It is unfortunate that you have a very confused understanding of the GPL.. But my view is we need to defend GPL.. Redhat cannot ask any body as per GPL to remove the RH name and logo from RHEL If it believes in GPL. then only it has right to to modification and combine all GPL software's as RHEL..Individual GPL software or Modified and clubbed software's like RHEL remains GPL always .RHEL is GPL individually or collectively . Roping in under on umbrella using anaconda or YUM does not change the GPL character. Red
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Hi All, @Sudhanwa: Thanks- your message is very enlightening and came while I was drafting this mail. Perhaps even I will now sign off from discussion (or perhaps not!!!) @MSY: Please note that we can discuss on the subject.Personal attacks don't solve the the debate. Respected Mr.MSY, I have no reason to attack you personally. I am talking this much only because I dont like naive but well-meaning users being bluntly snubbed or scolded. I disagree with your actions-- and I feel you are setting the wrong example for youngsters who may see this as a license to indulge in trolling on ILUGD to draw attention and traffic to their blogs/websites. Sir, a learned businessman of your level-- is a asset to any community if your queries are genuine you could instead please mail/talk offline to people more knowledgeable than me--- and write such mails after understanding why such discussions/debates are looked as unwelcome in a community like ilugd. At this point-- you are increasing the noise ratio in this group--- and apart from you (MSY) losing respect--- maybe causing people to unsubscribe OR mark ilugd mail as spam and that is bad. Maybe if you have a viewpoint deeper than everyone else you can enlighten all of us--- BUT RIGHT NOW, you are only wasting your time and everyone elses. Regards, NS ps: Please see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2] On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:38 PM, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Nalin Savara, snip ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Dear Nalin Savara, Please note that we can discuss on the subject.Personal attacks don't solve the the debate.Please note that Linux users are already discussing the issues.If you are not interested don't participate in the discussion. Linux For You India has already published an article Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL?. And as the community is openly discussing Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? .That’s a question that’s often asked by many, but generally fails to receive a confident reply and Linux community is much confused on this issue . It was reportedly popped up during a discussion at the Delhi-LUG too. What followed were very interesting opinions from active members of the group. As you might have read through, the article published in Linux For You September issue 2008 entitled Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? you will become aware of various issues and doubts around this question. Unfortunately, the discussion did not end with a conclusive reply from Redhat .LFY daringly questioned redhat India spoke person and its replies left the open community without the correct answer .Linux for you need to conduct further debate and let the open community debate this issue openly and find a open solution in open manner M.S.Yatnatti KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG --- On Sat, 10/4/08, Nalin Savara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nalin Savara [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India To: The Linux-Delhi mailing list ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org Date: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 2:09 PM Hi All on ILugD, Praveen, Sudhanwa, Shantz, Harish, et al, Guys, this guy is a troll-- dont feed the troll. After making my post I saw his websites--- and googled around--- and saw that the OP is a troll of the worst kind-- see his websites and even you guys will realize that. He has even included a detailed explanation on one of his websites about CentOS and CentOS versus RedHat-- so surely, this post to our ilugd list was totally unnecessary except for being his own way of getting cheap thrills and free publicity. This guy even owns a server in the US which his company uses. I suggest we avoid feeding the troll-- except to include his URL and point out that he's a troll. Suggest even you google around. Am tempted to tell this fellow not to insult our collective intelligence; but I think we ourselves should see his antecedents--- and decide whether feeding trolls is high on our priority list. Also Regards, NS ps: MSY-- you know what you are doing-- and if you do something positive instead of that-- this community will welcome you- STOP TROLLING. On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Harish Pillay [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Yatnatti - Hi. I cannot help but be bewildered by your discussions on the legality of distributing Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat (note the snip ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Dear Sudhanwa, OK you are only experts .Hats off for your comments.But our debate will contiue untill we get answer. proper answer.Why you threaten the innocent persons instead of Guiding .it is not good sign of Linux users group .It is debate and discussion.Many persons have many questions like me .I think you only are the experts and owners of LUG who can discuss the points and others like us are troll.It is nonsense.Then why the list is.Are you owner of the list .Have you trade marks to use this list like redhat that only you few persons can rule the list and others are troll.. .Let me know if your are owner i will withdraw from this list. Don't call me troll.Please don't visit my websites.I am capable of doing my business . i don't need your publicity.Please not that we have come for discuassion and not for fight.Please dont participate in the discusion if you dont want meangful discussion.Please note that it shows your weakess to attack personality instead of the subject and calling them troll..Alreday the Linux for you magzine has published an article on this issue. M.S.Yatnatti KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG --- On Sat, 10/4/08, Sudhanwa Jogalekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Sudhanwa Jogalekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India To: The Linux-Delhi mailing list ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org Date: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 2:49 PM Hi, I assume that MSY is a troll but still going ahead and adding in the thread as the discussion is useful for many people who are not so clear about this whole thing. MSY, Please understand the difference between Trade Marks, software licenses, Free software , commercial software, proprietory software. Looks like you have very clear misunderstanding of the terms and you need a legal advice about these terms. So, instead of sending some junk messages on the list, please get in touch with a legal advisor. Some points for you to seek more knowledge are: RHEL does not violate GPL RHEL is different than Fedora GPL v2 is different than GPL v3. Read GPL v3 for trademark and other related matters. As I remember, RHEL is not under GPL v3. If you want, you can BUY a box pack of RHEL which contains the source code also. and if you have the capabilities, remove all the RH trademarks and other such stuff and make a modified distro out of it. That modified can not be called RHEL as it will not have any TM of RH. All the best to you for that efforts of hacking RHEL. And all the best wishes and my moral support to your legal advisor !! /me signing off from this thread. Regards -Sudhanwa ps: this top posting is done knowingly. On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:25 PM, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Harish PIllay I am educating myself about four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software as per GPL .Freedom number two Redhat does not want to give user for RHEL Linux Distribution .The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom 2). Please refer http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.htmlFree software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.To read this much i don't need any lawyer.Thanks for your inputs in discussion . M.S.Yatnatti KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG --- On Sat, 10/4/08, Harish Pillay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Harish Pillay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India To: The Linux-Delhi mailing list ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org Date: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 1:08 PM Yatnatti - Hi. I cannot help but be bewildered by
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
On Saturday 04 October 2008 15:18:06 M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD wrote: skip Dear Mr. M.S.Yatnatti, I understand many have tried to answer your query. Let me try once again: The answer why you can't redistribute RHEL is only because of the branding issues. The full RH sources are available on public servers for anyone to download. You can strip the sources off of RH artwork and logos and roll out your own distro. GPL permits the same, and it's certainly not a loophole. It can be attributed to the fact that RH simply doesn't want to be associated with a distro that's not distributed by them officially -- they don't wanna be responsible for providing support for it. Again, sources are available, not the binaries, and thus you can get fixes and updates for everything, provided you are willing to compile binaries. This is exactly what projects like CentOS do. Best, Atanu ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Dear Mr Atanu, I am thankful for your cool reply.Please provide me the link where GPL provides branding of GPLed software's.. At the same time please provide me what happens to four freedoms guaranteed in GPL at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.Out of four one about redistribution is snatched by putting restriction on redistribution by branding. Is GPL has two different policies one about four freedoms and other with branding. Please be cool and reply.Many have lossed cool why replying to me.Let us understand the GPL indepth whether some one call me fool or troll.I am not bothered about their accusation .I make the debate without fearing any body.they can express their views I can express my views .Ultimately FOSS is big community to take care of GPL.. Learning is not simple.Immediately many people jumped on me calling troll instead of subject, Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? the question you have raised at Linux For You.. I dont know tommorrow they may say you have raised this isuue for cheap publicity for your magzine. I know you have made a great debate public..Thanks for your daring article. . M.S.Yatnatti KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG --- On Sat, 10/4/08, Atanu Datta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Atanu Datta [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India To: ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org Date: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 4:26 PM On Saturday 04 October 2008 15:18:06 M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD wrote: skip Dear Mr. M.S.Yatnatti, I understand many have tried to answer your query. Let me try once again: The answer why you can't redistribute RHEL is only because of the branding issues. The full RH sources are available on public servers for anyone to download. You can strip the sources off of RH artwork and logos and roll out your own distro. GPL permits the same, and it's certainly not a loophole. It can be attributed to the fact that RH simply doesn't want to be associated with a distro that's not distributed by them officially -- they don't wanna be responsible for providing support for it. Again, sources are available, not the binaries, and thus you can get fixes and updates for everything, provided you are willing to compile binaries. This is exactly what projects like CentOS do. Best, Atanu ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Yatnatti - I am educating myself about four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software as per GPL .Freedom number two Redhat does not want to give user for RHEL Linux Distribution .The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom 2). Since you are eager to learn and sound like a smart person, please lean how to post with relevance, edit stuff out and not top post [1]. Learn also proper sentence structure, especially the use of periods[2], punctuation marks etc. You might want to start with your very verbose and hard-to-follow website. And, a gentle reminder, it is Red Hat (two words). If you have any issue with the way the GPL is interpreted with reference to trademarks (which Red Hat (TM) and Red Hat (TM) Enterprise Linux (TM) are), please contact FSF[3] and Red Hat[4] or even GPL Violations[5]. BTW, have you or do you sponsor any FOSS project? Have you donated to the FSF[6]? If you have done both, kudos to you and welcome to the club. Do come back when you have done your homework and learning. Looking forward to seeing an enlightened you again. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style [2] http://www.ehow.com/how_2104864_use-periods.html (especially step #7) [3] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/contact [4] [EMAIL PROTECTED], [5] http://gpl-violations.org/ [6] https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/donate [Disclosure: I have been in the FOSS world since about 1986 and am currently working for Red Hat here in Singapore. Standard disclaimers apply.] -- Harish Pillay [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg id: 746809E3 fingerprint: F7F5 5CCD 25B9 FC25 303E 3DA2 0F80 27DB 7468 09E3 ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD wrote: Dear Mr Atanu, I am thankful for your cool reply.Please provide me the link where GPL provides branding of GPLed software's.. At the same time please provide me what happens to four freedoms guaranteed in GPL at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.Out of four one about redistribution is snatched by putting restriction on redistribution� by branding.� Is� GPL has two different policies one about four freedoms and other with branding. Please be cool and reply.Many have lossed cool why replying to� me.Let us understand the GPL indepth whether some one call me fool or troll.I am not bothered about their accusation .I make the� debate without fearing any body.they can express their views I can express my views .Ultimately FOSS is big community to take care of GPL.. Learning is not simple.Immediately many people jumped on me calling troll instead of subject, Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? the question you have raised at Linux For You.. I dont know� tommorrow they may say you have raised this isuue for cheap publicity for your magzine. I know you have made a great debate� public..Thanks for your daring article.� . M.S.Yatnatti KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, Bangalore � 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.OR As I couldn't any more see my friends' futile attempts to make you understand what GPL is for and what it's aims are, I try to add some support for them too. Before that, can you please learn how to write mails, especially when you are replying to other's replies and how to quote other's words when replying to them. All your mails have been unnecessarily long, not because your reply was long but because you chose to leave the earlier mail (if not wrong, the entire multi-quoted thread) at the end of your reply. Secondly, your sentence structure is so terrible that we have to read it many times to understand what you mean, and in the process might have completely misunderstood what you mean. I also wonder why do you want to advertise your company in all your mails to a public mailing list unless you are expressing not your personal opinions and concerns but rather of your company's. Coming to the point, you have repeatedly talked about the 4 freedoms offered by GPL.but this raises the question whether you have understood the 4 freedoms and where they can be applied. As RHEL you are referring to seems to exist under GPLV2, reading [1] again might be of use to you. If you read it, point 0 clearly states that it covers the program or other work which contains a notice that they are under GPL v2 and you can exclude something from being included if it doesn't affect the execution of the program that is under GPL. And, GPL covers only the copying, distribution and modification of the above mentioned program and anything other than this is out of its scope. Considering RHEL, you are free to do anything with the program and the code which is under GPL v2. This means, you can share the code, you can modify the code and you can distribute the modified code. The 'program under GPL' doesn't cover the name RHEL or the logos and other branding of RHEL at all, which means although you're allowed to distribute and modify the RHEL source code which is under GPL, you can not distribute the branding RHEL until you are authorized to do so. In addition, reading about this [2] GPL violation case in which MySQL AB won the case will also let you know the different between GPL and trademark license. Another pointer on a FOSS product's trademark policies on licensing (read Drupal and Mozilla) [3] and [4], though they aren't completely relevant on a GPL case but it shows how they value trademarks even when keeping their product open sourced. If you have any dispute with this, i.e. not allowing the branding to be distributed while you can do so with the source code under GPL associated with it, it would be better to consider a legal authority/help. You can even write to RMS or to Red Hat's legal department, but please ensure that your mail is sensible enough and structured that those sane men can get the meaning out of it. As we have tried our best to enlighten you about the fact and the truth, there is nothing more we can offer you in this matter. May be someone in this list can refer you to a proper legal help on this. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html [2] http://www.open-mag.com/features/Vol_24/GPL/gpl.htm [3] http://groups.drupal.org/node/15023 [4] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html -- --- With Regards, Parthan technofreak gpg 2FF01026 blog http://blog.technofreak.in ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD wrote: Dear Harish PIllay I am educating myself about four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software as per GPL .Freedom number two Redhat does not want to give user for RHEL Linux Distribution .The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom 2). Mr Yatnatti, if you feel so strongly about an issue you dont either understand, not have done any research on, I would highly recommend you speak to a laywer and take the matter to court. Ranting on a list about what you envisage is a GPL violation isnt going to help at all. Also, I've stayed away from this conversation so far as a matter of interest. However, this is just getting silly. I think Sudhanwa hit the nail on the head with his post. Yatnatti does not know or comprehend the difference between Copyright, Trademark, Licensing or the ethos of Open Source. Disclaimer: I am a member of the CentOS Devteam -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ GnuPG Public Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Dear Karanji,I don't understand why you want suppress the open voices .Do you think that only few people have eligibility to talk on the subject.Others have no authority to discuss any thing.If LUG has any predefined regulations let me know.Really I don't know that if any body comes with any question at LUG you ask him to go to lawyer. Even I don't know good English,I don't know your posting styles . Do you Immediately through me out of discussion.or You call me fool or troll if I have question.You don't reply some one else internet will reply. If you think it is waste of time please don't reply. I shall post this question directly to Linux for you or some where else on internet .I don't fear to ask question.Some one on internet will reply me.Please dont bother too much.If ILUG D tells me i will opt out from this list.In any case i will learn posting styles and improve my english. My research on the GPL in regards with trademarks in respect to the question is this. Please read the link carefully http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html There are Three paragraphs under the caption Trademarks and they are very clear and they are part of Guidelines for Free System Distributions and not guide lines for making commercial distribution or a proprietary OS out of GPLed software .Please make note of this point .Please note that you cannot make commercial distribution out of Guidelines for Free System Distributions .These guidelines don't tell you violate freedom given at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html .It states that Similarly, the distribution itself may hold particular trademarks. It is not a problem for these marks to be in the distribution, as long as they can be readily removed without losing the system's functionality. It means that let RHEL provide menu in the system itself that with click of mouse trade mark can be removed readily without affecting system's functionality and user can use it and distribute it. You cannot ask user to do it. It says readily means readily users should be able to remove it. Because paragraph two says In extreme cases, these restrictions may effectively render the program non free .It is unfair for someone to ask you to remove a trademark from modified code if that trademark is scattered all throughout the original source. As long as the conditions are reasonable, however, free system distributions may include these programs, either with or without the trademarks. But you cannot use trademarks to make system non-free as per GPL. Holding the trademark is different and however, free system distributions may include these programs, either with or without the trademarks. but redhat making RHEL non free and commercial is different. which I feel is the violation of GPL in two counts one at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html. That is not allowing redistribution and making commercial distribution RHEL using all GPLed software violating Guidelines for Free System Distributions. These are my views .may be correct may not be .Let us debate with cool and find out the real outcome. Immediately jumping to conclusions is not my way of thinking. This is only a debate. M.S.Yatnatti KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG --- On Sun, 10/5/08, Karanbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Karanbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India To: The Linux-Delhi mailing list ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org Date: Sunday, October 5, 2008, 3:55 AM M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD wrote: Dear Harish PIllay I am educating myself about four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software as per GPL .Freedom number two Redhat does not want to give user for RHEL Linux Distribution .The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom 2). Mr Yatnatti, if you feel so strongly about an issue you dont either understand, not have done any research on, I would highly recommend you speak to a laywer and take the matter to court. Ranting on a list about what you envisage is a GPL violation isnt going to help at all. Also, I've stayed away from this conversation so far as a matter of interest. However, this is just getting silly. I think Sudhanwa hit the nail on the head with his post. Yatnatti does not know or comprehend the difference between Copyright, Trademark, Licensing or the ethos of Open Source. Disclaimer: I am a member of the CentOS Devteam -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ GnuPG Public Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD wrote: Dear Karanji,I don't understand why you want suppress the open voices . You seem to also suffer comprehension disabilities if thats what you infer from my last email. Do you think that only few people have eligibility to talk on the subject.Others have no authority to discuss any thing.If LUG has any predefined regulations let me know.Really I don't know that if any body comes with any question at LUG you ask him to go to lawyer. Even I don't know good English,I don't know your posting styles . Do you Immediately through me out of discussion.or You call me fool or troll if I have question.You don't reply some one else internet will reply. If you think it is waste of time please don't reply. I shall post this question directly to Linux for you or some where else on internet .I don't fear to ask question.Some one on internet will reply me.Please dont bother too much.If ILUG D tells me i will opt out from this list.In any case i will learn posting styles and improve my english. Blah Blah That is not allowing redistribution and making commercial distribution RHEL using all GPLed software violating Guidelines for Free System Distributions. You are wrongly assuming that rhel is made up of GPL software. Go check your facts. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Karanbir Singh wrote: You are wrongly assuming that rhel is made up of GPL software. Go check your facts. s/of G/of only G/ -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Dear Praveen, Thank you for participating in the debate.Are you educating the open FOSS community that any body can club all individual GPL software into one Mega software collection under one umbrella using anaconda or Yum which is also GPL and make non-free commercial software=RHEL . Still simple club all GPL = non free commercial .Please educate me .Is it for this day Foss was born .Community make GPL Software and commercial entities take benefit with simple trick .This debate shall continue until, we have clear idea how to defeat GPL violators. M.S.Yatnatti KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG --- On Thu, 10/2/08, Praveen A [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Praveen A [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India To: The Linux-Delhi mailing list ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 9:56 AM 2008/9/30 Sudhanwa Jogalekar [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It is really unfortunate to know that people of CEO level are not able to understand the Trade Marks and Licenses. I believe what you meant was Trademarks and Copyrights. You can have Copyright License (GPL is one such) and Trademark License (what RHEL has). Copyrights are used to protect software and a copyright license is considered Free (as in Freedom) if it allows everyone who receive a copy of the program to use, study, change and distribute (modified or unmodified) copies of that program. All the components of RHEL is Free Software. But the collection distributed by Red Hat in CDs or DVDs also have a license. You can think of it as a collection of poems in the public domain. Even though individual poems remain in the public domain the collector has a copyright over the collection. Now trademarks are something different. It is used to protect brands. It ensures that you get what you think you are getting. RHEL name and logos are trademarked by Red Hat. That means if you see RHEL with Red Hat logos you can be sure it is from Red Hat. In the same way Mozilla Corporation own trademarks to Firefox. You need a license from the owner of the trademark (in the same way as copyright) to use that brand. CentOS removed the name and logos from RHEL and is distributing the same collection. In the same way Debian changed Firefox name to Iceweasel. Trademarks does not restricts the Freedoms mentioned in the Free Software definition. Btw please avoid using the term ipr. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html It implies either you are confused or you want to confuse everyone. 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 -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:18 PM, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Praveen, Dear Sir, Thank you for participating in the debate.Are you educating the open FOSS community that any body can club all individual GPL software into one Mega software collection under one umbrella using anaconda or Yum which is also GPL and make non-free commercial software=RHEL . Still simple club all GPL = non free commercial .Please educate me .Is it for this day Foss was born .Community make GPL Software and commercial entities take benefit with simple trick .This debate shall continue until, we have clear idea how to defeat GPL violators. Please tell me, where does CentOS come from? ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:18 PM, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Praveen, Thank you for participating in the debate.Are you educating the open FOSS community that any body can club all individual GPL software into one Mega software collection under one umbrella using anaconda or Yum which is also GPL and make non-free commercial software=RHEL . Still simple club all GPL = non free commercial .Please educate me .Is it for this day Foss was born .Community make GPL Software and commercial entities take benefit with simple trick .This debate shall continue until, we have clear idea how to defeat GPL violators. M.S.Yatnatti MSY, Well, only thing RH stops you from doing is that if you copy and distribute RHEL then your copied CDs/DVDs should not bear RHEL name or logo, which is understandable IMHO. And I think in that interview which you are pointing out, the RHEL spokesperson had clearly said the exact same thing that you can freely copy and redistribute but just need to remove the RHEL name and logo. -- I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, U can't prove anything - Bart Simpson http://blog.shantanugoel.com http://tech.shantanugoel.com ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Praveen A [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/9/30 Sudhanwa Jogalekar [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It is really unfortunate to know that people of CEO level are not able to understand the Trade Marks and Licenses. I believe what you meant was Trademarks and Copyrights. You can have Copyright License (GPL is one such) and Trademark License (what RHEL has). No. I meant Trademarks and Licenses. Copyrights are used to protect software and a copyright license is considered Free (as in Freedom) if it allows everyone who receive a copy of the program to use, study, change and distribute (modified or unmodified) copies of that program. All the components of RHEL is Free Software. But the collection distributed by Red Hat in CDs or DVDs also have a license. You can think of it as a collection of poems in the public domain. Even though individual poems remain in the public domain the collector has a copyright over the collection. Now trademarks are something different. It is used to protect brands. It ensures that you get what you think you are getting. RHEL name and logos are trademarked by Red Hat. That means if you see RHEL with Red Hat logos you can be sure it is from Red Hat. In the same way Mozilla Corporation own trademarks to Firefox. You need a license from the owner of the trademark (in the same way as copyright) to use that brand. CentOS removed the name and logos from RHEL and is distributing the same collection. In the same way Debian changed Firefox name to Iceweasel. Trademarks does not restricts the Freedoms mentioned in the Free Software definition. That is some good explanation useful to the OP. Btw please avoid using the term ipr. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html It implies either you are confused or you want to confuse everyone. That is another good pointer to understand things. But people may or may not agree to all the views mentioned there. Intellectual Property is a generic term and covers many things. I am neither confused nor trying to confuse others about IPRs. IPR is a complex subject and I will not get into it on the list. Regards, -Sudhanwa ~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~~ www.sudhanwa.com ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
2008/9/30 Sudhanwa Jogalekar [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It is really unfortunate to know that people of CEO level are not able to understand the Trade Marks and Licenses. I believe what you meant was Trademarks and Copyrights. You can have Copyright License (GPL is one such) and Trademark License (what RHEL has). Copyrights are used to protect software and a copyright license is considered Free (as in Freedom) if it allows everyone who receive a copy of the program to use, study, change and distribute (modified or unmodified) copies of that program. All the components of RHEL is Free Software. But the collection distributed by Red Hat in CDs or DVDs also have a license. You can think of it as a collection of poems in the public domain. Even though individual poems remain in the public domain the collector has a copyright over the collection. Now trademarks are something different. It is used to protect brands. It ensures that you get what you think you are getting. RHEL name and logos are trademarked by Red Hat. That means if you see RHEL with Red Hat logos you can be sure it is from Red Hat. In the same way Mozilla Corporation own trademarks to Firefox. You need a license from the owner of the trademark (in the same way as copyright) to use that brand. CentOS removed the name and logos from RHEL and is distributing the same collection. In the same way Debian changed Firefox name to Iceweasel. Trademarks does not restricts the Freedoms mentioned in the Free Software definition. Btw please avoid using the term ipr. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html It implies either you are confused or you want to confuse everyone. 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 -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
Hi Yatnatti, On face of it, I can see what your objection is. but brother, remember that since Linux is Open Source RedHat is bound to release the source codes of whatever they sell--- and if someone wants-- s/he can have/distribute for zero or very low price (even 1 cent) what RedHat sells for thousands of Dollars. It's true!!! That very same RedHat Linux OS is distributed free as CentOS (1-cent OS). A Suggestion: Brother, seems you have not yet you read the story of Don Quixote ? The guy who imagined WindMills to be Dragons, and actually went about getting hurt attacking windmills ??? Or is it that the agressive fighting spirit of Delhi-ites is so famous that you think you will try to provoke and excite us into going and fighting wars for free on your Behalf even against RedHat ??? Thanks for the compliment. However, unlike RedHat, whose OS can be sold for free, we publish a CD of incompetent companies which we distribute to many companies and from which make lot of money--- and which we distribute to many people making hiring/purchasing decisions-- to make them aware of useless and non-knowledge-able IT people--- and along with the name of the Elcott tutorial enthusiast, we have added your name and the name of your company to that list-- kindly send a unicast mail to know payment schedule to get your name removed from that list -N.S ps: part of this mail is light-hearted humour... go figure which part!!! and send me a note of thanks incase part of it is true/useful !!! On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Mon, Sep 29 2008, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD wrote: snip ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Every Body, Could you dare to challenge if redhat puts its logo and art work at your property and products and claim trademark ownership rights ? in the similar way would you object redhat which has put its logo and art work in RHEL Linux distribution and claimed the trade mark product ownership in RHEL when redhat is not the owner of RHEL. and GPL is the owner ..Could you dare to challenge the redhat.Redhat inc is under attack from open source community . [snip] It is really unfortunate to know that people of CEO level are not able to understand the Trade Marks and Licenses. I think it is a need to educate people on IPRs in general, software licenses, copyrights and copylefts etc etc. It will be great if the upcoming events like FOSS.IN etc arrange some talks/discussions on the same. Looks like the OP is really troubled by RH. /me looking for event organisers. /me thinks if this is some publicity stunt for the websites mentioned in the posting, it is surely going to get some bad publicity. Regards -Sudhanwa ~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~~ www.sudhanwa.com ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
On Tuesday 30 Sep 2008, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD wrote: Could you dare to challenge if redhat puts its logo and art work at your property and products and claim trademark ownership rights ? in the similar way would you object redhat which has put its logo and art work in RHEL Linux distribution and claimed the trade mark product ownership in RHEL when redhat is not the owner of RHEL. and GPL is the owner ..Could you dare to challenge the redhat.Redhat inc is under attack from open source community . I know Linux and GPL is bigger than redhat. But it's unfortunate that redhat is blatantly violating GPL by not permitting any body or every body to redistribute the RHEL ! I'd suggest you figure out the differences between trademarks and licences before claiming that what someone is doing is illegal. Please also examine RH's claims about ownership (whether they claim to own the distribution or the trademarks) carefully. As far as I know no one in his/her right mind who understands these issues claims that RH is in violation or either law or ethics in their distribution. I'm quite willing to participate in a sane, /informed/ discussion on these issues in the list; OTOH if all you want to do is troll please include me out. Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
On Tuesday 30 Sep 2008, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD wrote: snip ... This topic was discussed in this mailing list a few weeks ago. Please search through the mailing list archives. -- Arun Khan ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux For You India print Magzine India
On Mon, Sep 29 2008, M.S.Yatnatti CEO KPN UNLIMITD wrote: Could you dare to challenge if redhat puts its logo and art work at your property and products and claim trademark ownership rights ? in the similar way would you object redhat which has put its logo and art work in RHEL Linux distribution and claimed the trade mark product ownership in RHEL when redhat is not the owner of RHEL. and GPL is the owner Err, the GPL is a _license_. It can't own anything. And since RHEL expands to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would do some research before asserting that Red Hat does not own the mark RHEL. manoj -- If God wanted us to have a President, He would have sent us a candidate. Jerry Dreshfield Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
