🚀 go-pugleaf

Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 11:50:19 +0000, Bill Unruh wrote:

>> That may be fine. But redhat must do the same with their own trademarked
>> stuff to be in compliance with the GPL. Ie, it must be a separate
>> independent work. It cannot be an integral part. At present it is an
>> integral part by REdhat's own assertion. "If Customer makes a commercial
>> redistribution of the Software, unless a separate agreement with Red Hat
>> is executed or other permission granted, then Customer must modify any
>> files identified as "REDHAT-LOGOS" and "anaconda-images" to remove all
>> images containing the "Red Hat" trademark or the "Shadowman" logo.
>> Merely deleting these files may corrupt the Software."

> How is that "integral"?  As I understand it, all you have to do is
> replace them with other images.

I think that the phrase "deleting these files may corrupt the Software"
is a fairly clear indication that we are beyond "mere aggregation" here.

The question remains, is it far enough to become a derived work?
As I mentioned earlier, only a court can answer that.

From my point of view, the phrase, "BY USING OR PURCHASING RED HAT PRODUCTS
OR SERVICES, CUSTOMER SIGNIFIES ITS ASSENT TO THIS AGREEMENT," is a much
more dangerous can of worms because it ties the support contract to any
usage of the software.

	- Tel