Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright & RHEL contract
John Cowan wrote at 14:56 (EDT) on Monday: > I don't see where the oddity comes in. If we grant that the > compilation which is RHEL required a creative spark in the selection > (for the arrangement is mechanical), then it is a fit object of > copyright. It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim this sort of licensing explicitly. Are there any other examples? When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted software, I'm usually focused on things like "the maintainer chose which patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the release" within a single package, and not "big software archive, with lots of different Free Software works under different Free Software licenses". Again, I'm *not* saying the latter is an invalid or problematic use of copyleft -- I chose my words carefully: it's odd, as in "beyond or deviating from the usual or expected". :) -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright & RHEL contract
Al Foxone wrote at 07:57 (EDT): > Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use > binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in > that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark > license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit restrictive > contract. Do you have evidence that Red Hat's trademark requirements aren't of the nature that are permitted by GPLv3§7(e) and similar clauses in other Free Software licenses? Nothing you said above seems to be such evidence. > (quoting Red Hat Enterprise Agreement with [snip] editing) Noting your [snip], you selectively quoted from the RHEA. I admit it's been many years since I reviewed the RHEA in detail, and my arguments are based on that old version I read. If it has changed in some way that now causes a new problem under GPL, I'm just not following your arguments as to why. > My understanding is that when the GPL licensee distributes copies of > derivative works prepared under the GPL permission, the GPL insists on > licensing the copyright in a derivative work under the GPL and only > the GPL. Correct, AFAIK. > Since creation of derivative work (and even distribution of > adaptations under 17 U.S.C. 117) requires permission I can understand > that demand. ... Please prove me wrong. :-) You seem to be arguing that RHEA has some sort of GPLv2§6/7 (or GPLv3§10/12) problem. However, you've not shown any evidence for that. Determining such a violation likely hinges on what Red Hat's restrictions on their customer are if the customer fails to comply with RHEA. Meanwhile, I've spent the plurality of my life enforcing the GPL and other copyleft licenses. I hope based on that you'll take seriously my next point: it's unfair and aggressive to publicly accuse and/or insinuate that someone is violating the GPL without exhausting non-public remedies first. If you believe someone is actually violating the GPL but need help collecting the facts, you should report it to the copyright holders, not a license-discuss list. At the very least, it seems this subthread is more appropriate for http://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal/ -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Please change prelude on The PostgreSQL License
> Done -- thanks Josh. I used a slightly different wording, to give some > examples of what that file is usually called, but basically it's the > change you suggest above. Thanks! --Josh ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com) launched.
Quoting Bradley M. Kuhn (bk...@ebb.org): > Rick, > > I've tried to reply at length below on the issue of license (in)compatibility. > The below is probably the most I've ever written on the subject, but it's in > some ways a summary of items that discussed regularly among various Free > Software licensing theorist for the past decade, particularly Richard Fontana. Thank you for your very generous and thoughtful reply, Bradley. I'll have to spend some time reading it carefully. I appreciate your time and trouble. -- Cheers, "I love stateless systems." Rick Moen "Don't they have drawbacks?" r...@linuxmafia.com "Don't what have drawbacks?" McQ! (4x80) -- Sam Hughes ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright & RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)
Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com): > Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use > binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in > that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark > license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit restrictive > contract. I would not call that GPL. You're entitled to be mistaken. Last I checked, all source-access obligations under GPLv3, GPLv2, and other applicable copyleft licences were being fully complied with here: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/ The choice of licence for the asserted compilation copyright is indeed a little weird, but it's rather unlikely to be adjudicated. Contract and trademark are a different matter. My recollection is that Red Hat, Inc. assert trademark encumbrances concerning two non-software SRPMs containing artwork, etc. Those two are not asserted to be GPL, so it doesn't matter what you 'call it', I think. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
