On Thursday 25 December 2003 22:18, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Here there is no case of trademark infringement. The CDs which are labelled with redhat logo contains only redhat distributed packages.
The first sentence contradicts the second.
Your feeling of contradiction may get cleared once you go through following link. http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/page9.html
The redistributor has the obligation to remove the logos from the packages if the sources and logos are interwined. (that is why they make the sources available).
redhat does not demand so, if it is for a non-commercial educational project.
Hope you are not involved with creation of the CD. This statement can be used by RH as proof of violation.
I consider facts are more important and not manipulation of statements.
The other contains a customised version of RH.
There is no customisation of content.
May be, you distribute the ISO as it is from RH site; but, as pointed elsewhere, the RH trade mark policy does not permit that wholesale.
There is no wholesale. As per the work order CDIT has to develop and distribute a free software familiarisation CD for entry level users. By realising the need, it was CDIT's own decision to distribute OS along with it for which no commercial activity is involved.
We have to encourage such a realisation by a public sector firm.
As CDIT have used content of a redhat distribution for this purpose, they thought that it is morally right to give the credits to redhat. They did not voilate any instruction from redhat.
But more than the Courts, we need to look into the ethical issues involved.
There some more ethical issues involved. There is some disorder in the unity among the free software promoters in Thiruvananthapuram. May be that is natural. What is ethicaly unjustified is that they are always find fault in each others work in a pre-judicious manner.
The costs to be paid to the free software developer community by going ahead with such distribution will be high. The entire geographical region will have to bear that. Can we afford it ?
That we have to think off together. I think we should have a local distribution.
On Thursday 25 December 2003 21:11, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Again, how will CDIT/Akshya comply with requirements of GPL regarding making source code available for 3 years?? RH makes several modifications to the sources released by upstream authors.
I think CDIT is capable of finding a way out.
Regards,
Anil