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

[Paul Jakma]

------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm afraid Paul is the one who is entirely missing the point, this 
time:
The point is that the redhat-logos and anaconda-images RPMs' licence
terms explicitly deny grant of a copyright licence to anyone who is
not willing to abide by Red Hat's posted corporate trademark policy.

Thus, if your commercial usage (e.g., commercial redistribution)
contravenes that trademark policy, then, lacking licence to those
two packages, it commits the tort of copyright violation as to the
two RPMs."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh, this is why I find it so pointless to try discuss^Wargue 
anything with you:

exactly what your point is seems to shape-shift between every round, 
without you ever acknowledging you had to revise your point. Or maybe 
it's simply a failing of mine that I can't understand the subtleties 
of your points..

Let's recap: I quoted two sections of text of yours, which, between 
them, stated (to paraphrase):

- RHEL image distribution hinges on following RedHats' non-commercial
   policy

- RPM build process mixes trade-marked images with the other packages
   during "compilation"

Let's deal with the former first, and clarify. And it depends on what 
you mean by RHEL image:

1. the full ISO:

- Is not GPL
- Some other non-Free licence (non-commercial, whatever)

2. The GPL collective work of RHEL (ie RHEL minus the 2 exceptional
    RPMs)

- GPL
- Distribute it as you like

I hope I've made it clear that I personally only have been 
considering the latter case.

For the case of 2 GPL RHEL (RHEL minus the two non-free RPMs), it's 
pretty clear you have a right to redistribute it (commercially or 
not) under the GPL:

- RedHat give you that right explicitely.
- The GPL does not care about trademarks
- Their non-commercial "honour our trademark" licence for the case of
   1 doesn't even come into play here.

For the case of 1, the exact RHEL ISO image:

- no GPL licence
- do have a restricted non-free licence
- some non-commercial distribution allowed apparently

The above is to clarify. I don't think there's anything in the above 
which I have asserted you contradicted. (though you may, obviously, 
but maybe you might also agree. I don't know.)

If you reply and agree the above is common ground, please snip it in 
your reply.

Now let's move on to the latter of your arguments that I have taken 
issue with, *this* is the one concerning trade-marks and which I 
shook my head at, I'll quote it again:

>> 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.

"RHEL's _binary_ RPMs are trademark-encumbered (and thus proprietary)"

This is just waffle. On two points:

1. Technical: RPM build process mixing trademark-encumbered contents
    into all RPMs

What? Where? I don't believe this is at all true.

2. Trademarks: Even if 1 is correct, how on earth do you get to
    "proprietary"? (I presume you mean this in a "non-Free" /
    non-redistributable kind of way).

Assume 1 is correct, please explain how a binary RPM of a GPL work, 
containing say a trademarked RedHat logo, is not subject to the GPL, 
is not redistributable, because of the trademark on that logo?

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and if you think your claim has merit 
then you're simply confused about trademarks.

Yes, you can hinge a copyright licence on the licencee following some 
trademark policy, but that in no way means their realms are relevant 
to each other. No more so than if you hinge a copyright licence on 
the licencee on the colour of their shoes and try claim the spectrum 
of light intrinsically affects copyright and/or vice versa.

I won't reply to your lecture on collective works. I'm reasonably 
sure I'm at least as aware of the difference as you are.

NB: These emails contain the word "RedHat", a trademark, in many 
places. Our emails must be proprietary and subject to RedHat's 
licence!!!

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
user to computer ratio too high.