From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Can you get the product without being bound by the restrictions? > That is, can one user purchase one and resell copies without the SLA > or with their own? Not with the trademark, that is mis-appropriation. If you want to complain about Red Hat doing this, then you'll want to complain about a number of distributors well before Red Hat who are far worse. > The GPL covers anything that can be considered a derivative work under > copyright law. That certainly includes binaries. Now you're mixing things. The GPL does _not_ address binaries, just what is required -- availability of source, and no restrictions on that source for things that are required for that source to work -- _regardless_ of what is redistributed. It also states that you can't use GPL source with someone non-GPL that requires it to function. Trademarks do not. The software functions the same regardless whether or not you have the trademark. > No one is obligated to provide them, but they cannot prohibit copying > or redistribution as long as the requirement to include or offer source is > met. No one can prohibit restricting the _source_. Again, you are mixing things. I can restrict whatever I want on the binaries, as long as I'm abiding by the other terms of the GPL on the source. That means I don't redistribute anything in any form, unless the source for that is freely available in a way that is unrestricted that the software works the same. SuSE, Dan's Guardian and other distros/software go farther in not even making source packages available. Red Hat at least dumps out _all_ SRPMs, even the overwhelming majority they could point to Fedora for. > No, it covers all derivative works. No, copyright law does. If a copyright holder explicitly states that he/she will not allow trademarks to be bundled with the software, or any installer or other "helper" software, then he/she has the right to do that. But the GPL itself does _not_. > Otherwise it could not prohibit distribution of something that must be > linked to a proprietary dynamic library to function. But trademarks are _not_ required for the software to function exactly the same. That's the difference! Again, you're mixing things. > Typically the FSF has claimed that anything linked into a binary > becomes part of the derivative work. [ The BS watches Les drop off the deep end ;-] > I don't particularly agree with it You don't particularly seem interested in realizing that Red Hat is the _least_ of our problems among commercial companies. And you don't seem to be interested in Trademark Law, and the whole concepts of why it exists. Red Hat's "goodwill" severely crippled their ability to deal with some companies who have no problem with trashing their name. I don't think you realize that Microsoft could have flooded the market with an ultra-crappy "Red Hat(R) Linux" that would have destroyed mindshare overnight. Sun was basically on their way to doing it too, which pissed a lot of us off. Because of Sun and others, Red Hat had to vehemetly defend their trademark to the anal power, and projects like CentOS are stuck with dealing with that as a result. Red Hat is the _only_ major commercial Linux entity that allowed redistribution of its trademark on a scale large enough that it could have been declared "public domain" by the USPTO. Red Hat lives with that now. *NO* other commercial vendor will attempt it in the future either. [ The only exception seems to be SuSE(R), which Novell seems to be turning into a "Fedora-like" trademark. ] > - I'm just reading what it says, and 'no additional restrictions' > seems pretty clear. Take "Red Hat(R)" out of the GPL software and it works _exactly_ the same. If you really have a bug up your ass about this, ask FSF lawyers. ;-> Red Hat can only say they've cleared it with the FSF so many times before people who don't want to believe will _never_ believe (like yourself). The maintainer of Dan's Guardian regularly gets ignorant pukes who complain he is "violating" the GPL by not making the source available on his web site. Same deal, he's got things cleared with the FSF and Stallman, but people want to assume things. The GPL is _not_ about "free" -- it's about "freedom." The "freedom" to modify source code and keep software alive, well after the copyright holders might be dead or don't care. It doesn't give you the right to mis-appropriate trademarks. And unlike patents, trademarks are _not_ required for the software to function legitimately and exactly. > If someone adds their trademark to something that becomes a > derivative work of something carrying the GPL, they should either > not be able to distribute at all, or they have to allow redistribution. If the GPL 3.0 says this, then pretty much not only will _all_ commercial distributions die, but pretty much all support avenues for Linux. I don't think you realize the precedent you're asking for. > Things that aren't embedded in a GPL work would be different, You _can_ "bundle" anything with GPL that it doesn't require. > like artwork that happens to be on the same disk and there is no > requirement to make it easy to separate the 'merely aggregated' > parts, though. What do you mean by "embedded"? RPM is merely just a USTAR 5KB block size (cpio System-V) archive. Even an ISO9660 "Yellow Book" track (data CD) can be considered an "archive." Do you _really_ want to open up that "subjective" door? At this point, ask the FSF. I think you're just going to argue this until you get the answer you like. Good luck with the FSF. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org