On Monday 06 Jul 2009, narendra sisodiya wrote:

If redhat is bundling some with GPL software and making a new OS which has restriction, this is truly valid scenario. You can say "Redhat Linux" is not a Open Soruce Linux OS, It is commerical Linux OS.

Please correct me where am wrong !!

Apologies in advance for nitpicking, but Open Source and Commercial aren't opposites. Open Source can (and must) be commercial. If you want to contrast, the opposite of Open Source is "Proprietary".

Regards,

-- Raju

On Monday 06 July 2009, narendra sisodiya wrote:

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Pravin Dhayfule dhayfule@gmail.com wrote:

...

=========================================================

Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (Atanu Datta)

...

Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (Sukhdev Jadhav) Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (jtd) Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (Raj Mathur) Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (narendra sisodiya)

===========================================================

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the reply and the explanations. They all were well explainative and logical :)

But my friends, I do agree about what CentOS does, distribute by removing trademarks etc etc.

I agree.

But folks, these all apply to them who want to entirely distribute a new Flavor by reusing Red Hat code.

My question lies related to End Users. Just for the example what my friend did. Obtained the Red Had Linux CD from institute as a COPY of Original CD, just like how Windows, Linux Mint, Ubuntu and other OS CDs are replicated and distributed.

Now on Ubuntu's cover for example, they permit Users the exclusive freedom to replicate and distribute the CDs, although for Windows its Restricted, and I guess this would be even restricted by Red Hat since every CD may be charged per System.

So my questions is will this END USER style of distribution and sharing lead to Piracy?

Trademark Removal etc are all Programmer Level steps. I am talking from a perspective of Sharing the OS with a neighbor to install on his/her system as it is received..... Will it be piracy?

Bye Regards -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

See, FOSS licence give various freedom to code and programmer !! like MIT licence give maximum freedom to coder and GNU licence give maximum freedom to code itself. but I have full freedom to "not to use my freedom" -- like, Suppose one of my client want to write a code !! He do not to show code to world !! then I will code or him and give him under GPL !! So i am coding a free software (because i am giving him full freedom) for my client but i am going to share it with rest of world, and my client will not going to share it with rest of world !! I think it truly valid scenario where I am restriciting my freedom !!

There are many example where companies do have dual licence , for example -- see this flowplayer http://techfandu.blogspot.com/2009/06/this-is-how-you-can-earn-using-foss.h tmlrelease same code under different licence , one os Open source - GPL3.0 and other is commercial licence . because he is the creator of code base he has full right to do it. and this is fully valid.

If redhat is bundling some with GPL software and making a new OS which has restriction, this is truly valid scenario. You can say "Redhat Linux" is not a Open Soruce Linux OS, It is commerical Linux OS.

I would add that "bundling" means merely putting on the same distribution medium, additional closed software. Bundling does not include linking to / including within the source code, GPLV2 or higher licenced software.

Essentially there is no simple explanation, due to the hughe variety of usage and licences included within a distro. So a BSD source can be included in a gpl and or a closed product. Thus RH is entirely free to use BSD source with RH restrictions and create a closed package (although they dont afaik).

Again closed would mean a package whose source is unavailable, even though the binary maybe freely distributable.

Open would mean the source is available, but maynot necessarily be distributable / modifiable. Such a package would be classified as open, but not free - MS has several such packages, including dot net.

And there can be a whole range of inbetweens for linking, source, binary, library, runtime, services distribution.

So when one says Open (source), it can mean anything. A fact exploited by M$ and others. The term "Free" can also be abused by merely giving away gratis, the binary- eg flash player, Acrobat Reader.

Bottomline READ the licence. Buzzwords dont mean a thing.

steve wrote:

Pravin Dhayfule wrote:

...

<...snip...> Trademark Removal etc are all Programmer Level steps. I am talking from a perspective of Sharing the OS with a neighbor to install on his/her system as it is received..... Will it be piracy?

I think there are a few basic things that you need to understand /before/ you understand the answers to your questions:

a. Unlike the proprietary world, FOSS does not distinguish between developer, user and distributor. Each person receiving FOSS software, has the right to assume any or all of the three roles. There is no 'END USER' (for an ELUA to exist). So from that perspective, you are a distributor if you share something (using a CD, online, pen-drive ...or any media).

b. Piracy is the practice of hijacking a naval vessel and plundering it. Software Piracy is a silly nonsensical term. Software related violations include things like copyright violation, trademark infringement and unfortunately patent violations ...etc.

True! I agree, 'software piracy' is a hilarious misnomer.

Now that we've cleared that up, here is a simplified (IMHO) explanation of what everybody already said:

RHEL == Linux Kernel + GPL/BSD/MIT ...etc licensed Software + Red Hat trademarks (artwork etc)

• How must does the RHEL distro cost ?

• 0/-

• How does Red Hat make money, if the cost of the RHEL distro is 0 ?

• Subscriptions, trainings, consultancy ...and maybe more.

• How is the RHEL distro. distrubuted ?

• The sources are available for free on redhat.com and Red Hat provides CDs/DVDs

of the distro. to it's customers (people who buy subscriptions or undertake trainings ...etc)

• Can you ask Red Hat to send you a RHEL distro CD if you are not a Red Hat

customer ?

• No

• Can you download RHEL sources from Red Hat servers ?

• Yes

• Can you use the downloaded sources to make a RHEL CD ?

• Yes

• Can you distribute (including sharing with your neighbor) the CDs you made ?

• Yes ! *IF* you remove all the trademarks from the CDs (so that your neighbour

is clear about the fact that what she is getting is *not* coming directly from Red Hat)

• If you have received a CD/DVD from Red Hat (because you are a customer), can

you make /exact/ copies of that CD/DVD and distribute it ?

• No ! That is trademark violation.

• Instead of making copies, can you use the same CD/DVD you received from Red

Hat to install RHEL on more than one systems ?

• Yes, you can.

Hope that clarifies everything. If you have more questions, ask here or just contact Red Hat directly :).

cheers,

• steve

Very beautifully summarized. Thank you.

Regards Kamal

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM, steve steve@lonetwin.net wrote:

Pravin Dhayfule wrote:

...

<...snip...> Trademark Removal etc are all Programmer Level steps. I am talking from a perspective of Sharing the OS with a neighbor to install on his/her

system

...

as it is received..... Will it be piracy?

I think there are a few basic things that you need to understand /before/ you understand the answers to your questions:

a. Unlike the proprietary world, FOSS does not distinguish between developer, user and distributor. Each person receiving FOSS software, has the right to assume any or all of the three roles. There is no 'END USER' (for an ELUA to exist). So from that perspective, you are a distributor if you share something (using a CD, online, pen-drive ...or any media).

b. Piracy is the practice of hijacking a naval vessel and plundering it. Software Piracy is a silly nonsensical term. Software related violations include things like copyright violation, trademark infringement and unfortunately patent violations ...etc.

Now that we've cleared that up, here is a simplified (IMHO) explanation of what everybody already said:

RHEL == Linux Kernel + GPL/BSD/MIT ...etc licensed Software + Red Hat trademarks (artwork etc)

• How must does the RHEL distro cost ?

• 0/-

• How does Red Hat make money, if the cost of the RHEL distro is 0 ?

• Subscriptions, trainings, consultancy ...and maybe more.

• How is the RHEL distro. distrubuted ?

• The sources are available for free on redhat.com and Red Hat provides

CDs/DVDs of the distro. to it's customers (people who buy subscriptions or undertake trainings ...etc)

• Can you ask Red Hat to send you a RHEL distro CD if you are not a Red Hat

customer ?

• No

• Can you download RHEL sources from Red Hat servers ?

• Yes

• Can you use the downloaded sources to make a RHEL CD ?

• Yes

• Can you distribute (including sharing with your neighbor) the CDs you

made ?

• Yes ! *IF* you remove all the trademarks from the CDs (so that your

neighbour is clear about the fact that what she is getting is *not* coming directly from Red Hat)

• If you have received a CD/DVD from Red Hat (because you are a customer),

can you make /exact/ copies of that CD/DVD and distribute it ?

• No ! That is trademark violation.

• Instead of making copies, can you use the same CD/DVD you received from

Red Hat to install RHEL on more than one systems ?

• Yes, you can.

I was not knowing this fact about RHEL !!

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:

On Monday 06 Jul 2009, steve wrote:

...

[snip]

• How must does the RHEL distro cost ?

• 0/-

[snip]

Great and beautifully simple explanation, Steve. Can I request you to put it up on a Wiki or blog somewhere for posterity?

Regards,

-- Raju

Raj Mathur raju@kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves

-- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Hi Steve, I have posted your mail here - http://lug-iitd.org/Articles/Can_Red_Hat_Enterprise_products_fall_under_FOSS If something is remaining - please edit it -

On Tuesday 07 July 2009, steve wrote:

Hi All,

narendra sisodiya wrote:

...

Hi Steve, I have posted your mail here - http://lug-iitd.org/Articles/Can_Red_Hat_Enterprise_products_fall_under_F OSS If something is remaining - please edit it -

There are a few additions/corrections to the points I made in my earlier post. I received these in the comments on my blog post (from a reliable source). I have also corrected the wiki page.

Q: Can you ask Red Hat to send you a RHEL distro CD if you are not a Red Hat customer ? A: No. Although, it is possible to get the ISO images if you sign up for an evaluation at http://www.redhat.com/rhel/details/eval/.

Q: Can you use the downloaded sources to make a CD ? A: Yes, you may recompile the downloaded sources to create your own RHEL clone. This is exactly what CentOS does. (Note that I change 'RHEL CD' in my initial post to CD, since what you create is a RHEL clone).

And most importantly, I was totally wrong about this: Q: Instead of making copies, can you use the same CD/DVD you received from Red Hat to install RHEL on more than one systems ? A: No, you cannot. Installation of RHEL on more systems than the number of subscriptions you have purchased is considered as redistribution, which implies trademark violation.

Caveat: Copying / Installing with the trademarks would be a violation if and only if such trademarks are not in a GPL package. Thus including trademarks in a GPL package, then adding a superset of licence terms to override the gpl terms will be illegal. Hence I can Copy such a GPL package INCLUDING any trademarks that might be in there eg RH logo in the grub package. Of course things get very murky when other FLOSS licenced code is part of the distro.

I realized this only after I read the "Subscription Agreement"[1] more closely. Curiously enough (and what caused me a bit of confusion) is the differences between the definition of the term 'Installed System' as it applies to RHEL and as it applies to JBOSS.

For RHEL: An "Installed System" means a system on which Client installs or executes all or a portion of the Software, which may be, without limitation, a server, work station, virtual machine, blade, node, partition, or engine, as applicable...

For JBoss: For purposes of the Subscription Services described in this Appendix, the term "Installed System" means a group of CPUs (e.g., up to 64 or up to 256) for which Client is receiving Services.

I had previously assumed, the meaning of Installed System is the system which is receiving services ie: a subscribed system.

ah, well, mea culpa, cheers,

• steve

[1] http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html

why procrastinate when you can perendinate ?

random non tech spiel: http://lonetwin.blogspot.com/ tech randomness: http://lonetwin.blogspot.com/ what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.blogspot.com/ --------------------

steve wrote:

b. Piracy is the practice of hijacking a naval vessel and plundering it. Software Piracy is a silly nonsensical term. Software related violations include things like copyright violation, trademark infringement and unfortunately patent violations ...etc.

Now that we've cleared that up, here is a simplified (IMHO) explanation of what everybody already said:

RHEL == Linux Kernel + GPL/BSD/MIT ...etc licensed Software + Red Hat trademarks (artwork etc)

• How must does the RHEL distro cost ?

• 0/-

RHEL is not available free of cost. The free of cost version is Fedora.

• How does Red Hat make money, if the cost of the RHEL distro is 0 ?

• Subscriptions, trainings, consultancy ...and maybe more.

• How is the RHEL distro. distrubuted ?

• The sources are available for free on redhat.com and Red Hat provides CDs/DVDs

of the distro. to it's customers (people who buy subscriptions or undertake trainings ...etc)

This means that RHEL CDs are not free of cost.

• Can you ask Red Hat to send you a RHEL distro CD if you are not a Red Hat

customer ?

• No

• Can you download RHEL sources from Red Hat servers ?

• Yes

• Can you use the downloaded sources to make a RHEL CD ?

• Yes

This CD will be exclusive of the RH trademarked stuff.

• Can you distribute (including sharing with your neighbor) the CDs you made ?

• Yes ! *IF* you remove all the trademarks from the CDs (so that your neighbour

is clear about the fact that what she is getting is *not* coming directly from Red Hat)

The CDs made from sources can be distributed but original RHEL CDs with RH trademark additions cannot be duplicated and distributed.

• Instead of making copies, can you use the same CD/DVD you received from Red

Hat to install RHEL on more than one systems ?

• Yes, you can.

I don't think so. It is the same as using a copy.

Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:

On Tuesday 07 July 2009 08:51:43 Rony wrote:

...

...

RHEL == Linux Kernel + GPL/BSD/MIT ...etc licensed Software + Red Hat trademarks (artwork etc)

• How must does the RHEL distro cost ?

• 0/-

RHEL is not available free of cost. The free of cost version is Fedora.

before replying to a message on a thread it is advisable to read the whole thread. Everything you have said in this mail has already been discussed, debated, archived, documented and published and the rest of us have moved on. Please enable threaded view in your mail client.

Every time someone asks a simple question whether Red Hat Enterprise Linux ( RHEL) CDs can be copied and used on other machines, we give him long technical details about removing trade marks, downloading free sources etc. but we simply forget to say "No. You cannot duplicate RHEL CDs as they are paid for and are not free of cost. If you want free of cost, use Cent OS or Fedora". There ends the matter. Downloading free sources, compiling them etc to make a free CD is not what the newbies want to do. They are simply referring to making a copy of the _original_ RHEL CD in their frequently asked questions. They cannot do that.

2009/7/7 Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com:

want to do. They are simply referring to making a copy of the _original_ RHEL CD in their frequently asked questions. They cannot do that.

I'm wondering how making a copy violates a trademark. The copy is still exactly the same product. A trademark is used to identify a product with a brand, copying does not change that. Trademark protects you from other people using your brand for their products. But in case of copying, it is still your product and it is representing the same product.

(Client forces top posting)

How does installing rhel on another machine violates trademark?

Logos or name is not misused. You are just calling a spade as spade. You are not calling an axe as spade.

On Jul 8, 2009 2:43 AM, "Rony Bill" gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:

On 7/8/09, Praveen A pravi.a@gmail.com wrote: > 2009/7/7 Rony < gnulinuxist@gmail.com>: >> want to ... Making a personal copy for preserving the original CD from scratches is not the issue here. It is implied that the purpose of copying an RHEL CD is to install it on other systems that are not within the coverage of the paid-for installation.

-- Regards,

Rony.

GNU/Linux No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom. -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

2009/7/8 steve steve@lonetwin.net:

Praveen A wrote:

...

(Client forces top posting)

No, It does not. You simply have to take the time and effort to scroll down a bit.

When I read mail from my phone, I have to top post (the default gmail client on android phones allow only top posting). Other option is wait till I get to my PC or not respond at all.

...

How does installing rhel on another machine violates trademark?

From one of my earlier responses:  > Installation of RHEL on more systems than the number of subscriptions you have  > purchased is considered as redistribution, which implies trademark violation.

I don't think that comes under trademark law, it would definitely a copyright violation, but then rhel copyright license does not prohibit redistribution.

/Now/, can we let this thread die ?

Why you have to force it? If people are not interested, it will die itself. If the issue was so simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Or you could just hit the delete button.

- Praveen

On Thursday 09 July 2009, steve wrote:

Praveen A wrote:

...

2009/7/8 steve steve@lonetwin.net:

...

Praveen A wrote:

...

(Client forces top posting)

No, It does not. You simply have to take the time and effort to scroll down a bit.

When I read mail from my phone, I have to top post (the default gmail client on android phones allow only top posting). Other option is wait till I get to my PC or not respond at all.

Oh ok. Well, my bad. How about when you could use the browser to access gmail instead of the gmail client ?

...

...

...

How does installing rhel on another machine violates trademark?

From one of my earlier responses:

...

Installation of RHEL on more systems than the number of subscriptions you have purchased is considered as redistribution, which implies trademark violation.

I don't think that comes under trademark law, it would definitely a copyright violation, but then rhel copyright license does not prohibit redistribution.

To spell it all out: a. According to Red Hat's Subscription Agreement, _installation_ on more than the number of subscriptions you bought is considered _redistribution_. b. The RHEL copyright (or rather EULA) does prohibit redistribution of RHEL alongwith trademarks. c. Ergo, such an installation /implies/ trademark violation.

The points below exclude closed drivers / packages. RHEL is not the Indian Legal system to interpret as it deems fit very clear cut laws. Installation is not redistribution. There is a court judgement on this point (dont ask me for a reference though). Copying is not redistribution. Installing from copies? I dont know if it's a trademark violation and In this case is not a copyright violation.

...

...

/Now/, can we let this thread die ?

IMO it is a case of deliberate weasel words by RH, to con people into believing that they cannot install on multiple machines. You can install on multiple machines from the same cd without paying RH a pip. You are not violating copyright or trademark laws in doing so.

There are innumerable ways to clearly partition the services from the distro. Getting lawyers in place of common sense is a nice recipe for disaster. Anyway RH should know that.

2009/7/8 Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:

please wait. There is not all that much urgency in this matter to justify a top post. This thread will still be here well into next month.

OK my bad. I will wait till I can do a compliant response from now on.

- Praveen

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 05:57:06PM +0530, Rony wrote:

Praveen A wrote:

...

OK my bad. I will wait till I can do a compliant response from now on.

What is this 'My Bad' term that you guys use?

I think it's Anglicized "Mea culpa".

Oh, and check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_bad

:-)

Kumar

Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:

On Thursday 09 July 2009 04:42:14 Praveen A wrote:

...

...

Praveen A wrote:

...

(Client forces top posting)

No, It does not. You simply have to take the time and effort to scroll down a bit.

When I read mail from my phone, I have to top post (the default gmail client on android phones allow only top posting). Other option is wait till I get to my PC

Have you tried to scroll the cursor down to the bottom?

please wait. There is not all that much urgency in this matter to justify a top post. This thread will still be here well into next month.

Then you will send him a mail telling him that the thread is closed.

On Wednesday 08 July 2009 23:33:31 Praveen A wrote:

(Client forces top posting)

discard client

Raj Mathur wrote:

On Wednesday 08 Jul 2009, Praveen A wrote:

...

(Client forces top posting) [snip]

A brain surgeon goes into the operating theatre and tells the patient, "I lost my tools so I only have an axe today to operate with".

Acceptable? :)

Now that's a real hacker. :-)

On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 17:32 +0530, Rony wrote:

Praveen A wrote:

...

(Client forces top posting)

How does installing rhel on another machine violates trademark?

Logos or name is not misused. You are just calling a spade as spade. You are not calling an axe as spade.

If it was not provided legally by RedHat then it is a duplicate. Anyway it is not just a trade mark violation, it is an illegal copy that cannot be installed on other systems.

In free software nothing is duplicate. if you install on other machines that all that you won't get is the trademark and also the service. Else the software under gpl can't be made proprietory.

happy hacking. Krishnakant.

2009/7/9 Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com:

If it was not provided legally by RedHat then it is a duplicate. Anyway it is not just a trade mark violation, it is an illegal copy that cannot be installed on other systems.

The legal basis is http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html which does not prevent making duplicate copies. If it is not a copyright violation (GPL grants this right to copy) and not a trademark violation (you agree to this already), it is perfectly legal copy.

- Praveen