[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: about anaconda



On 21 Dec 2002, Peter Bowen wrote:

> You are entitled to reproduce and distribute the CDs that come with Red
> Hat Linux.  However, as I explained above, the CDs alone are not Red Hat
> Linux.  I don't think that this is in any way restricting the rights you
> have under the GPL, as Red Hat has granted sufficient permission to
> allow duplication.  You are welcome to duplicate the entire CDs, intact,
> and distribute them on a non-commercial basis.

i've watched red hat grapple with this for a while, and i really don't 
think they've done a very good job of it.

obviously, they've decided to protect the name "red hat linux" by
*defining* it to mean not just the actual contents of the CDs, but
the arbitrary support and whatever that goes with those CDs when
you purchase an official set.  fair enough.

but under the GPL, and according to red hat themselves, *everything*
in a red hat distribution is freely distributable.  therefore, i have
*every* right, under the GPL, to resell those CDs, do i not?  the
problem is, what can i call that collection of CDs?  can red hat
give me an answer to this?  do they themselves have an acceptable
name for strictly the contents of the CDs that make up the product
"red hat linux"?  and if so, what is that name?

from everything i've read, if i were to package a set of "red hat"
cds, i couldn't sell that as "red hat linux".  but it certainly
seems legal to sell them as "the red hat linux CDs", doesn't it?
i'm not claiming that my product *is* red hat linux.  i'm simply
claiming that the CDs are identical to the ones a buyer would get
with official "red hat linux".  and as long as i make it clear that
i am selling just the CDs, how can this not be legal?

i could get even more pedantic and label my product "the CDs
that are identical to red hat CDs".  is there a problem with
*that*?

i think it's gotten absurd to see copies of red hat CD sets 
being advertised online as "pink tie" or something to that
effect.  if everything on the CDs is GPL, and freely distributable,
i'm baffled as to how red hat can prevent someone from putting
together and selling a set labelled something "the cds of red
hat linux 8.0".  where exactly is the violation here?

rday





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]