CentOS - Jun 2005 - Re: Vote For CentOS :) -- at this point, call the FSF ...

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

On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 17:37, Bryan J. Smith  wrote:
> > 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.
Are you reading the same COPYING file that accompanies pretty much
every product covered by the GPL?   Please quote anything that
exempts binaries.  They are clearly derived works.  You don't have
to distribute them at all.  If you do, all of the terms of the GPL
apply, including not adding any other restriction on redistribution.
> 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.
It says that anything that is a derivative under copyright law is
covered and that the distribution of the whole must be on the terms
of the GPL license.  No exceptions.
> > 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'm just reading what it says.  There are no exceptions that I can find.
> 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.
You don't have to redistribute anything.  If you do, you can't impose
any restrictions but the GPL itself on anything which can be considered
a derivative work.  So you can't restrict redistribution of binaries of
anything containing GPL'd parts.
> 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_.
Copyright law defines a derived work.  The GPL says that anything that
is a derivative work must, as a whole, be distributed under GPL terms.
Whether something is a separate 'bundled' work or a derivative work
can be argued.
> > 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.
Only leaving the 'derivative' question open.  Including a trademark in
a way that does not make a derivative work is not an issue.
> > 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.
No, just in whether something meets the terms of the GPL or
or not.  The document doesn't mention any names to exempt.
> 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.
Does that change the meaning of 'no additional restrictions'?  If
not, I don't see how it is relevant.
> > - 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).
If they really want the license to say that some companies can
create derivatives that have restrictions besides the GPL and
some can't, they should change it to say that.
> > 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.
The current GPL says that you can't distribute any derivative work
unless the whole can be distributed under the GPL terms. 
> I don't think you realize the precedent you're asking for.
I'm just reading the document, and I can't find the exceptions
you seem to think are there.  Please quote them.
> > 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"?
Whatever meets the legal definition of a derivative work.  Something
compiled into a binary would be clearly an inseparable part.
> 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?
I'm not qualified to interpret the legal concept of derivative work
but I'd expect the separate items within an RPM to fit the
'mere aggregation' clause, but not the binaries as installed.
> 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.
The FSF isn't the copyright holder on all of the contents, although
I suppose that realistically they would be the only ones likely
to sue.  

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell at gmail.com