[ILUG] The old CD thread again {RHEL this time}

[Paul Jakma]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Conor Daly wrote:

> Referring to the original box-set RHEL 3 binary CDs:
>
> there are 364 rpms which do not contain "GPL" in their 'License' =

> field [1].  The sorted list of these produces 5 'License' entries =

> [2] that I cannot immediately identify as redistributable along =

> with 3 packages which are "Copyright =A9 2003 Red Hat, Inc.  All =

> rights reserved." [3].  The results of my search are below.

2 of the RedHat packages are explicitely listed in the RHEL licence - =

which btw is the *GPL* apart from those two RPMs.

One presumes that third (C) RedHat RPM therefore is redistributable, =

at least as part of RHEL (after all, RedHat say it is), given RedHat =

grant you that GPL licence to RHEL as a collective work, other than =

those two RPMs.

>> 2.  Does the RPM build process mix trademark-encumbered contents from
>> redhat-logos and anaconda-images into various other packages'
>> installations, during compilation?  The answer to this is almost
>> certainly "Yes".  If so, then many more of RHEL's _binary_ RPMs are
>> trademark-encumbered (and thus proprietary) than just redhat-logos and
>> anaconda-images.

Sigh. Rick is confused between trademark and copyright law.

> But the right to copy cited above allows non-commercial copying of =

> the trademarks (there is further commercial copying and =

> redistribution terms in the same file).  It does encumber a GPL =

> licensed program with proprietary data.  Is that reasonable under =

> the GPL?

Can you give an example of a package?

A GPL package can contain:

- Data/images/software that is RedHat "All rights reserved"
   copyright

- If images, those images could be of RedHats' trademarks

- RedHat would have to grant a GPL licence to the files, for them to
   be part of GPL software.

Having an image that is distributable under the GPL, is not =

incompatible with that image depicting a trademark.

Copyright affects the right to copy. Trade marks affect the right to =

trade using a mark.

>  Given that the rpm is a packaging method rather than the software =

> itself, it may be reasonable but appears contrary to the GPL since =

> it encumbers the recipient from redistributing the binaries.

No, it doesn't, if RedHat grant a GPL licence to copying the image =

concerned - which they undoubtedly do given they seem to have pretty =

clueful lawyers wrt open-source.

The trademark grants RedHat rights in a completely different area, =

completely unrelated to copyright. An image can be both copyrighted, =

and depict a trade mark, but those two things are quite different.

regards,
-- =

Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
The hardest thing is to disguise your feelings when you put a lot of
relatives on the train for home.