Dear Harish PIllay
I am educating myself about four kinds of freedom, for the users of the
software as per GPL .Freedom number two Redhat does not want to give user
for RHEL Linux Distribution .The
freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom
2).
Please refer
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.htmlFree software is a matter of liberty,
not price. To understand the
concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free
beer. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The
freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.The
freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom
2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is
free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should
be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications,
either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone
anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other
things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.To read this much i
don't need any lawyer.Thanks for your inputs in discussion .
M.S.Yatnatti
KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG
--- On Sat, 10/4/08, Harish Pillay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Harish Pillay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ilugd] Is it illegal to redistribute RHEL? Open Letter To Linux
For You India print Magzine India
To: "The Linux-Delhi mailing list" <ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org>
Date: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 1:08 PM
Yatnatti -
Hi. I cannot help but be bewildered by your discussions on the
legality of distributing Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat (note the
two words), puts every bit of code out on GPL. In fact, Red Hat
goes above and beyond the minimum needed for compliance
with the GPL by placing all the source (patched and updated) for
free download [GPL only requires the provider to povide a link to
the original source and full source of their patches].
> This is debate happening. You all are
> experts can guide your fellow Linux users.
> Praveen,is teaching the open FOSS
> community that any body can club all individual GPL software into one
> Mega software collection under one umbrella using anaconda or Yum
> which is also GPL and make non-free commercial software=RHEL .
Not sure what you mean here.
> Still simple club all GPL = non free commercial .Please educate me .Is it
> for this day Foss was born .Community make GPL Software and
> commercial entities take benefit with simple trick .This debate shall
> continue until, we have clear idea how to defeat GPL violators.
It is unfortunate that you have a very confused understanding of the GPL..
> But my view is we need to defend
> GPL.. Redhat cannot ask any body as per GPL to remove the RH name and
> logo from RHEL If it believes in GPL. then only it has right to to
> modification and combine all GPL software's as RHEL..Individual GPL
> software or Modified and clubbed software's like RHEL remains GPL
> always .RHEL is GPL individually or collectively . Roping in
> under on umbrella using anaconda or YUM does not change the GPL
> character.
Red Hat makes it completely clear HOW to take out the Red Hat logos etc
so that the code can be complied and worked. Thereafter you are free to
do as you please. GPL does not cover trademarks. I hope you understand
the differences between copyrights, patents and trademarks. The code itself
is on GPL. The logos, the name "Red Hat" are all trademarks
belonging to
the entity called "Red Hat, Inc". FSF is very clear about the
distinction. I shall
leave it to you to be educated on the differences.
> Fedora is a Linux based
> operating system that provides users with access to the latest free
> and open source software, in a stable,
> secure
> and easy to manage form. AS fedora is UOP of RHEL like fedora RHEL
> also is a Linux based operating
> system that provides users with access to the latest free
> and open source software, in a stable,
> secure
> and easy to manage form. Therefore RHEL is also redistributable as
> that of Fedora.
What's "UOP of RHEL"?
> Please refer
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html(We maintain this free
> software definition to show clearly what must be true about a
> particular software program for it to be considered free software.
> Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the
> concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free
> beer. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
> distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
> it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The
> freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
> (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.The
> freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom
> 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
> to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
> Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is
> free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should
> be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications,
> either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone
> anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other
> things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
And it is indeed the case with the code you can download from ftp.redhat.com.
> As per
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> it is not necessary to seek permission from Redhat to redistribute
> RHEL as per GPL..
Wrong. You cannot call it Red Hat Enterprise Linux if you are distributing
it unless you are a business partner of Red Hat.
> Briefly explained, the GPL
> allows you to copy software, the GPL allows you to distribute (sell
> or give away) that software, and the GPL grants you the right to read
> and change the source code. But the person receiving or buying the
> software from you has the same rights. And also, should you decide to
> distribute modified versions of GPL software, then you are obligated
> to put the same license on the modifications (and provide the source
> code of your modifications)there fore redhat cannot replace GPL and
> puts its own EULA.. You can actually call the GPL a viral license
> because it spreads like a virus. Herein you means it may be
> individual or company or organization).ALL Linux experts can guide me if
they can.
>
> M.S.Yatnatti
I think you should get the advise of lawyers on this. Clearly your are
reaching out for help and I think it is best that you get guidance from
lawyers who understand GPL. I am sure you can find them in India.
Regards.
--
Harish Pillay [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg id: 746809E3
fingerprint: F7F5 5CCD 25B9 FC25 303E 3DA2 0F80 27DB 7468 09E3
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
