[ale] Re: Red Hat scare tactics

[Michael D. Hirsch]

On Friday 17 October 2003 02:25 pm, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 12:46, Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
>
> This is a big part of the reason for the Fedora distribution.
>
> Currently, there are a few rpm packages that glue in the RedHat
> trademarked logo's and name around the system. The splash screens on
> boot and X startup are the two big ones. There are other locations that
> use different RedHat TM'ed logo stuff. All of it gets put in
> /usr/share/pixmaps/redhat. It is provided by the package redhat-logos.
> Pulling out that package should get rid of all of the RedHat trademarked
> stuff.
>
> That package is also NOT under the GPL:

Ahh!  This I can understand them restricting.  If that is the only part of the 
distribution that is not free, I can handle it.  Cool-o.

Thanks, Jim.

Michael

> rpm -qi redhat-logos
> Name        : redhat-logos                 Relocations: (not
> relocateable)
> Version     : 1.1.6                             Vendor: Red Hat, Inc.
> Release     : 2                             Build Date: Fri Sep  6
> 10:05:22 2002
> Install date: Tue Oct 15 20:46:53 2002      Build Host:
> daffy.perf.redhat.com
> Group       : System Environment/Base       Source RPM:
> redhat-logos-1.1.6-2.src.rpm
> Size        : 1041217                          License: Copyright ?
> 1999-2002 Red Hat, Inc.  All rights reserved.
> Signature   : DSA/SHA1, Fri Sep  6 10:15:28 2002, Key ID
> 219180cddb42a60e
> Packager    : Red Hat, Inc. <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
> Summary     : Red Hat-related icons and pictures.
> Description :
> The redhat-logos package (the "Package") contains files of the Red Hat
> "Shadow Man" logo and the RPM logo (the "Logos").  Red Hat, the Red
> Hat "Shadow Man" logo, RPM, and the RPM logo are trademarks or
> registered trademarks of Red Hat, Inc. in the United States and other
> countries.
>
> See the included COPYING file for information on copying and
> redistribution.
>
> > Nope, not to me.  If they distribute an RPM under the GPL then I can
> > redistribute it.  That is what the GPL says.  If they put other things in
> > that I can't redistribute they are violating the GPL.
> >
> > The GPL is a license.  It is a license that is based on copyright law,
> > but it is still a license.  The license says that anyone RH gives the RPM
> > to can redistribute it and restricting that right violates the license.
> >
> > So if RH puts trademarked images in the RPM and then says that I can't
> > redistribute the RPM because of trademark law, they have just violated
> > the GPL.  If they want to not violate the GPL they must let me
> > redistribute the RPM.
>
> There is no violation of the GPL in this case since the package that
> contains the logo's in not licensed under the GPL.
>
> > The final argument is that it should make no difference if I recompile
> > the source RPM into a binary.  The resulting binary should be exactly the
> > same--that is part of the value of RPMs, you can reconstruct hem from the
> > source RPM.  So if trademarked images keep me from redistibuting the
> > binary RPM, they should still be there after recompiling the source RPM.
> >
> > Note that I'm talking about an RPM, not the entire CD.  Each RPM comes
> > with a license, and if the application in the RPM is GPLed, the RPM, as a
> > derivative work, is also GPLed.  It seems reasonable to me for the CD, as
> > a collection of works, to come with its own license, and possibly it
> > cannot be redistributed freely, but I don't understand the argument for
> > individual RPMs.
>
> As each RPM package displays it license on request (rpm -qi foo), it is
> tedious, but easy, to exclude any package with out a redistributable
> license like the GPL. RedHat has done an excellent job at making all of
> their work on the software GPL'ed. As it should be, they get to retain
> bragging rights with their trademarked name and logo. RedHat did not put
> those in a license conflicting setting by packaging them under a GPL
> license and then disallowing the redistribution. It would be unwise for
> them to do so as they have been a major champion, before and after the
> IPO/big business venture they are now, of the strength of the GPL.
>
> > Michael
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale