[Asterisk-Users] Re: Advice on OS Choice

[Joe Greco]

> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Joe Greco wrote:
> 
> > > RedHat further encumbers RHEL with a EULA which extends the GPL and
> > > further restricts your rights to use the product.
> > 
> > That, then, sounds like it might be a violation of the GPL.  The GPL 
> > is, sadly, a maze of twisty little untested legal strategies, and even
> > the IP lawyers don't know for sure.
> 
> No, it is not. The restriction is placed on the non-gpl components. The 
> gpl is very clear that shipping gpl and non-gpl components on the same 
> media does not interfere with the gpl.

That doesn't seem to be the issue.  The issue appears to be that they are
shipping GPL components interspersed with items they have trademarked.

> > Section 1 of the EULA says, essentially, "go ahead, it's GPL".
> > 
> > Section 2 of the EULA says, essentially, "But we own our trademark and
> > you cannot distribute that and we've stamped it all over the place.  So
> > if you distribute it you better damn well remove them all and woe to you
> > if you fsck up."
> > 
> > If this analysis is correct, this definitely flies in the /spirit/ of the
> > GPL, which clearly does not expect people to have to modify files (and 
> > understand the side effects of the modifications) prior to redistributing
> > them.
> > 
> > The "not spelled out" part of this is that "Red Hat" itself is actually
> > a trademark, and I suspect is stamped on copyright messages throughout
> > the distribution, and /text has legally been considered an image/, so 
> > literal compliance with this EULA would require a redistributor to strip 
> > the Red Hat copyrights out of the files, and I expect that that would 
> > violate the GPL ...
> 
> No, you do not. Attributions have no creative part, they are purely 
> functional. Indeed, copyright messages are left intact in all the 
> RHEL-based distributions. 

Correct, it would be a violation not to.

However, I believe you've missed the point.  This isn't about copyright.
Red Hat appears to have said that "you cannot distribute our trademark".
There is a certain amount of law which allows a company to determine how
its trademarked name (or other trademarks) are used, and I would be very
wary of the situation where both copyright and trademark law applied,
because I suspect the more restrictive would win out.

If Red Hat distributes its logo image, under the GPL, but also has a notice
on its website that the logo is a trademark with restrictions on use, you 
may not be violating the GPL by distributing it, but you may be breaking
trademark rights.  That's potentially actionable, and appears to be 
something the GPL didn't anticipate.

Ecch.

> In fact, the non-gpl rpm:s are marked as such.  There are some places
> where the argument may be used such as the naming of configuration files
> (/etc/redhat-release) and others. Those names are not purely functional
> (they are chosen at will and hence have a creative element). However, they
> are only distributed along with a gpl component. They themselfes are not
> under gpl. So this is ok too. 
> 
> Nothing to see here, move along folks.

I'd check with a really good IPL and trademark lawyer before making that 
kind of a statement.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.