Arun had absolutely gone wrong. The OS used is RH Linux 9.
Got the news from Arun,that CDIT used RH 8.0 with some additional packages added and used the RH Logo. Hence,the case.
Did it publish its own CDs and used RH logo? or copied/distributed RH enterprise linux software?
They used RedHat 8, initially. They made packages which looked like RedHat packages. With redhat trademarked logo. In contained some additional stuff, on the same CDs or separate CD in the same package.
What do you mean by "packages which looked like RedHat packages"? Does it have any base? You may please have a look into softwares like xmms. It has look like the winamp? Is it also not allowed? The biggest strength of "Free Software" is "copy, modify, and redistribute". Manilal
On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 12:02, Manilal K M wrote:
Arun had absolutely gone wrong. The OS used is RH Linux 9.
Got the news from Arun,that CDIT used RH 8.0 with some additional packages added and used the RH Logo. Hence,the case.
Ok stands corrected.
But for the issue at hand it doesnt make any difference.
What do you mean by "packages which looked like RedHat packages"? Does it have any base? You may please have a look into softwares like xmms. It has look like the winamp? Is it also not allowed? The biggest strength of "Free Software" is "copy, modify, and redistribute".
The package had the logo of Akshya project along with the trademarked logo of RedHat.
Akshya is a no profit initiative. But the CD are distributed for the benefit of Akshya entrepreneurs. Those are 100% for profit initiatives.
Now, i leave it to lawyers here to interpret where the CDs were distributed for a non profit or for profit.
I dont think we can not justify act of one organisation just because it would have helped us in some ways. Eg if we start supporting copyright infringements by free software project, how can we defend infringements on copyleft software ? We are seeing a lot of those these days.
Then CDIT and Akshya project were informed of the issue, then why did they chose to ignore ? When we told abt the issue, several months back, we got very bad response.
As Sajith suggested there may be some one trying to create prob. But a mistake is made. There are other copyright issues involved, if i remember correctly.
arun.
On ബു, 2003-12-24 at 06:32, Manilal K M wrote:
Arun had absolutely gone wrong. The OS used is RH Linux 9.
Yes, OS is redhat 9.0. And Redhats logo is printed on the CD.As far as I know, Redhat 9.0 License doesnot allow this, but fedora License do. The real question is, is it a "COMMERCIAL REDISTRIBUTION" or not. Let someone else answer it.
Kerala IT mission and CDIT(?) was clearly informed about the issue. So it was up to them to take necessary steps.
But I do belive that there is "someone else" is playing behind the issue whose actual aim is to block the use of Free softwares in Akshaya project, and other IT related projects in kerala. They are trying to say "Even free softwares are not free in all case". This may result in unwanted confusion on common free software users. Let's take necessary action to avoid this confussion.
Yes, OS is redhat 9.0. And Redhats logo is printed on the CD.As far as I know, Redhat 9.0 License doesnot allow this, but fedora License do.
I think you are confused with different versions of redhat. redhat 9.0 is not redhat enterprise linux. fedora and redhat enterprise linux are distributed after formulating two distribution policies by redhat. Whatever license applicable for redhat 8.0 is also applicable to redhat 9.0.
Here there is no case of trademark infringement. The CDs which are labelled with redhat logo contains only redhat distributed packages. All the stuffs developed by CDIT is distributed in a CD with Akshaya logo. It does not contains any reference of redhat.
Whatever CDIT has attempted is legally justified.
We should join together to save current free software projects in the state and initiate new ones. CDIT is one of the approachable institution for this purpose.
Regards,
Anil
Here there is no case of trademark infringement. The CDs which are labelled with redhat logo contains only redhat distributed packages. All the stuffs developed by CDIT is distributed in a CD with Akshaya logo. It does not contains any reference of redhat.
Whatever CDIT has attempted is legally justified.
I saw a package which had RedHat logo and Akshya logo. Also i dont remember seeing any paper which said warranty is not available with the CDs. Any way as CDs were not yet distributed technically CDIT is in safe position. IT Mission would have faced legal probs when they distribute the CDs to Akshya Centers.
Myself and Sajith told IT Mission and a CDIT person involved in the project abt possible issues. Response from the CDIT person was really bad. Later some discussion happened between IT Mission, CDIT, RedHat India etc.
BTW, the reporter of India Express seems to be anti-free software guy. It is not the first time he is making a report which can hurt free software movement.
Arun M said on Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 05:04:02PM +0530,:
BTW, the reporter of India Express seems to be anti-free software guy. It is not the first time he is making a report which can hurt free software movement.
That should not distract us from a valid criticism when it is raised. When people fail to distinguish between free and non-free software on a CD, the re-distributor should be extra careful on what he is distributing.
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.
For example, AFAIK, the apache server is seriously modified by RH that the binary is called something else (httpd??), not Apache. (Got this info from a mailing list of someother distro; so I might be wrong here).
Will C-DIT/Akshya make available the sources 3 years down the line? I am sure that RH has not given C-DIT/Akshya any written undertaking as envisaged in the GPL. So, if any of the receipients of the Akshya CD demands sources, will the project be able to comply??
Please, I am not arguing with anybody or for or against anything.
I am just pointing out the possibility of other people who, like the reporter of NIE, are anti-free software. Some people can be influenced to become pawns and be used to put the project's use of GNU/Linux in jeopardy. This is a situation we need to guard against.
I recall a long, unpleasant and dreary thread with the maker of the Knoppix distro. The complaint against him was that he was putting sources to his changes alone on his site; not the entire sources as modified by him. People can get real nasty sometimes.
Hi, We, the free software community should clearly ask the kerala state IT mission that, this issue should not make any delay in allowing use of GNU/Linux in akshaya project.
On ബു, 2003-12-24 at 15:06, eiidp wrote:
I think you are confused with different versions of redhat. redhat 9.0 is not redhat enterprise linux. fedora and redhat enterprise linux are distributed after formulating two distribution policies by redhat. Whatever license applicable for redhat 8.0 is also applicable to redhat 9.0.
Here there is no case of trademark infringement. The CDs which are labelled with redhat logo contains only redhat distributed packages. All the stuffs developed by CDIT is distributed in a CD with Akshaya logo. It does not contains any reference of redhat.
Whatever CDIT has attempted is legally justified.
We should join together to save current free software projects in the state and initiate new ones. CDIT is one of the approachable institution for this purpose.
Regards,
Anil
Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
Anil said on Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 09:45:45PM +0530,:
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.
The trouble comes from the Red Hat *logo*; not software.
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).
Hope you are not involved with creation of the CD. This statement can be used by RH as proof of violation.
All the stuffs developed by CDIT is distributed in a CD with Akshaya logo. It does not contains any reference of redhat.
Whatever CDIT has attempted is legally justified.
Apparently, there are two CDs. One containing RPM binaries + sources of packages created by C-DIT for the Akshya project. The quote above apparently refers to this CD.
The other contains a customised version of RH. The first quote apparently refers to this CD. Hope I got it right. Then I take it that the letter from RH refers to the CD containing the OS.
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.
Maybe, C-DIT/Akshya is not charging anything for the CDs themselves. But whether one is doing a `commercial activity' is decided by the Courts by looking into other factors too.
But more than the Courts, we need to look into the ethical issues involved. RH does not like their logos to be used; the logos are not under a free license. Do not distribute them. Period. End of distribution.
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??
Mahesh T. Pai said on Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 10:18:07PM +0530,:
But more than the Courts, we need to look into the ethical issues involved. RH does not like their logos to be used; the logos are not under a free license. Do not distribute them. Period. End of distribution.
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??
I am afraid I am not clear enough on this and open to be under-understood.
Software distribution involves law of Copyright. When people use a special symbol to refer to a product from a special origin, the law of Trademarks applies. And then, some people claim patents too apply.
The free software movement uses the law of copyright to keep programs unrestricted. When people claim patents to apply, we insist that the patents too should be licensed free of restrictions. As a community, we do not concern ourselves with trademarks *for keeping software free*.
The individual members / corporates consisting the community can, and do apply trademarks to programs / collections distributed by them. We have an obligation to respect the terms under which use of these tradekmarks are permitted.
I invite your attention to the case of a once popular mail client. It was under an apparently free license. But creator of the ptogram choose to interpret the license in a manner which restricts users' freedoms; with the result that major distros ceased to distribute binaries of the mail client. We did not insist that 'but every one else interprets those words differently'.
I suggest that we adopt the same approach here. RH's and our perceptions of what constitutes `commercial use' may differ; but if RH insists that a particular activity is commercial, we can and should respect that view in so far as use of anything under a non-free license is concerned. We should not speculate on what the courts *may* hold. This approach will earn us better standing in the community.
Mahesh posts:
RH's and our perceptions of what constitutes `commercial use' may differ; but if RH insists that a particular activity is commercial, we can and should respect that view
We should also stand by RH because these days they consistently refuse to package `non-free' software. As a good Free software business, Redhat is also employing a lot of free software programmers and hackers. They have contributed back to the pool of Free software. I think that we keep away from the mess of C-DIT's own making.
We should find an other Freesoftware-inclined IE reporter (our own KG, an influential IE reporter can help us) who can write a separate article which clears up all of these confusions. Maybe we can help do that.
-
Anil -
Arun M -
Mahesh T. Pai -
Manilal K M -
Raghavendra Bhat -
Sajith VK