🚀 go-pugleaf

"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> writes:

]On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:53:45 +1000, Gregory Toomey wrote:

]> It was a dark and stormy night, and Jacob Heider managed to scribble:

]>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:05:21 +1000, Gregory Toomey wrote:

]>>> They seem to forget that the nerds use Linux at home, college, AS WELL AS
]>>> in the enterprise. Reh Hat is forcing users to buy support with their
]>>> latest offering, & breaking the GPL. So the nerds that made Red Hat what

]>> I what sense are they "breaking the GPL"? The GPL was designed to product
]>> their right to make money by selling software licensed under it (in
]>> addition to other things).

]> The new Redhat licensing forces to pay for support if you use the product. If you use the software & dont pay, you are in breach of the Redhat Licence.
]> This is in breach of the GPL, which always allows derivative works to be distributed for free.
]> (You can pay of course, but there must always be a free version).

]Bzzt, wrong.  Here is the license for Red Hat Enterprise Linux
]version 3:

]http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html

]Look at Appendix 1 (Appendix 2 is very similar).  Section 1 covers
]all the GPL components, and backs up the GPL in a few different
]ways.  Section 2 covers Red Hat's proprietary images.  Section 6

Section 2 is clearly an attempt to subvert copyright law by using
trademark law. Redhat MUSt release the whole under the GPL, and their
attempt to use trademarks makes null and viod the GPL license. The GPL
demands that anyone be able to make a copy of a derived work. Redhat is
stating that they may not make a copy of the derived work. As such they
are violation of the GPL, and are not allowed to use any GPL work in
their product. 

The GPL is very clear. The user MUST be able to freely make and
distribute copies. It
does not state that if making those copies would violate trademark then
restricting the users ability to make copies is OK. It says they MUST be
allowed to make  and distribute copies. Redhats states that they may
not. Redhat is therefor in violation of the GPL. It is that simple.
 
]covers third-party software, which is not formally part of "The
]Software" but is distributed with it for convenience; this software
]may be non-GPL, but if you don't want to use it, then you simply
]don't (and in fact are not allowed to) install it.

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."