Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No License Needed For Kubuntu Derivatives

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    GPLv3 states:

    You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

    Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License.
    You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
    Let me be the first to say I am not a lawyer... but this does not specify binary files. I also found a different sentence in that paragraph interesting.

    If I take what others are saying here as correct...

    Red Hat would not be able to prevent the redistribution of their binary files as part of a modified distribution... but from what I can tell they do prevent that. Does anyone know how they do that? Simply not hosting a public server is not sufficient. Anyone could simply pay for one copy and then redistribute the binaries contained based on what has been said in this thread... in fact they could host their own server with all the binaries. Since that is not what is happening there has to be a flaw in the logic being employed.

    Comment


    • #62
      Trademarks cannot be a further restriction, because they are not part of the source in the first place, ie the Red Hat logo is not under the GPL.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by dee. View Post
        Ah, people debating this thing, bringing up the same Red Hat/CentOS comparisons I heard last from vim_user 4 months ago.

        People, go read this 4 months old thread, lest we have to rehash everything here again
        I read that thread and your original quote does appear to be about the website, but it is not what I quoted.

        2. Intellectual Property Rights. The Programs and each of their components are owned by Red Hat and other licensors and are protected under copyright law and under other laws as applicable. Title to the Programs and any component, or to any copy, modification, or merged portion shall remain with Red Hat and other licensors, subject to the applicable license.
        B. You may not name or brand your product “Red Hat,”
        or use the Red Hat trademarks in any way, either on
        your product or in related advertising. You must use a
        different trademark for your product that will not cause
        confusion with the trademarks of Red Hat, will not
        indicate or imply that your product originates from or is
        sponsored or approved by Red Hat, and which otherwise
        complies with applicable trademark laws.
        Please also
        refer to the guidelines for use of the brand “Red Hat”
        and for plays on the words “Red Hat.”
        Both of those do not refer to the website. They appear to protect the 'programs' and each of their components... and in fact claim that they are owned by Red Hat and other licensors... and worse protected under copyright law and other laws.

        In Mint's case they have not removed all Ubuntu trademarks... they are in fact claiming to have derived from Ubuntu. Canonical is OK with this, but wants to have Mint refrain from using those files and associations in a commercial manner.

        So, Red Hat would deny Mint based on their terms... Canonical would allow it with a license.

        Am I following you?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by indigo196 View Post
          Let me be the first to say I am not a lawyer... but this does not specify binary files. I also found a different sentence in that paragraph interesting.
          Sigh... go read the thread I linked. You're saying nothing new.

          In short, elsewhere in GPL it is specified that the GPL applies equally to the licensed work in all its forms, either binary or source. The GPL does not stop applying just because you compile the covered work into a binary - to the contrary, it specifies more obligations for you to fulfill (namely, the providing of source code).

          Red Hat would not be able to prevent the redistribution of their binary files as part of a modified distribution... but from what I can tell they do prevent that. Does anyone know how they do that? Simply not hosting a public server is not sufficient. Anyone could simply pay for one copy and then redistribute the binaries contained based on what has been said in this thread... in fact they could host their own server with all the binaries. Since that is not what is happening there has to be a flaw in the logic being employed.
          They don't. Red Hat doesn't restrict the distribution of their binaries. They place restrictions on their trademarks though: you're not allowed to take RHEL and sell/redistribute it as RHEL. You're allowed to take it, remove all RHEL trademarks and distribute it as "Banana Monkey Linux" if you want. RHEL doesn't really sell software, they sell support contracts. What you get when you buy RHEL is a support contract, granting you access to updates from the Red Hat servers, tech support, etc.

          Both of those do not refer to the website. They appear to protect the 'programs' and each of their components... and in fact claim that they are owned by Red Hat and other licensors... and worse protected under copyright law and other laws.

          In Mint's case they have not removed all Ubuntu trademarks... they are in fact claiming to have derived from Ubuntu. Canonical is OK with this, but wants to have Mint refrain from using those files and associations in a commercial manner.

          So, Red Hat would deny Mint based on their terms... Canonical would allow it with a license.

          Am I following you?
          No. Red Hat cannot add license terms on GPL software, the GPL forbids adding any extra restriction on the software. Red Hat can restrict the usage of their trademarks though. That's the same thing Google does with Android. Anyone is free to take the Android source code and use Android for free, but if they want to call it "Android" they need to license the trademark from Google.

          Canonical's case has nothing to do with trademarks. Canonical is claiming that they can add restrictions to the binaries themselves, this meaning: not just binaries of software developed by Canonical, but everything in their repositories, 99.9% of which is developed by people other than Canonical - and in most cases, not even hosted by Canonical, due to mirrors. Mint doesn't use any Ubuntu trademarks, they don't advertise being "derived from Ubuntu" as a part of their product image - and even if they did, that probably wouldn't even be sufficient for a trademark violation, as long as they didn't claim to be affiliated with Canonical or doing so as a part of some kind of sponsorship deal with Canonical.

          And again, before someone (*cough*vimuser*cough*) brings up that tired old horsemeat, the issue is not that Canonical is asking money. Canonical is entirely free to ask money for the use of their servers, the GPL expressly states you're allowed to sell GPL software. However they can't place restrictions on how Mint is allowed to use GPL software, apart from the restrictions already provided by the GPL license. They can't demand Mint to refrain from OEM deals as a condition for the usage of GPL-licensed software.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by dee. View Post
            They don't. Red Hat doesn't restrict the distribution of their binaries. They place restrictions on their trademarks though: you're not allowed to take RHEL and sell/redistribute it as RHEL. You're allowed to take it, remove all RHEL trademarks and distribute it as "Banana Monkey Linux" if you want. RHEL doesn't really sell software, they sell support contracts. What you get when you buy RHEL is a support contract, granting you access to updates from the Red Hat servers, tech support, etc.
            So, they restrict access to the updates? Aren't those also GPL binaries as times?

            Originally posted by dee. View Post
            Canonical's case has nothing to do with trademarks. Canonical is claiming that they can add restrictions to the binaries themselves, this meaning: not just binaries of software developed by Canonical, but everything in their repositories, 99.9% of which is developed by people other than Canonical - and in most cases, not even hosted by Canonical, due to mirrors. Mint doesn't use any Ubuntu trademarks, they don't advertise being "derived from Ubuntu" as a part of their product image - and even if they did, that probably wouldn't even be sufficient for a trademark violation, as long as they didn't claim to be affiliated with Canonical or doing so as a part of some kind of sponsorship deal with Canonical.
            Interesting... doing a Google search for Linux Mint results in the following:

            A distribution based on and compatible with Ubuntu, which is shipped with integrated proprietary or patented media codecs.
            and

            Based on Debian and Ubuntu, it provides about 30,000 packages and one of the best software managers.
            and in their user guide:

            relies on the Ubuntu and Debian projects and uses their systems as a base
            I am also not as clear as you are that Canonical has claimed that all binaries are their copyright vs. specific ones that contain their IP.

            Comment


            • #66
              Just did a locate on a fresh install of Linux Mint

              I am not sure how this impacts the instructions, but thought I would share:

              On a fresh install of Mint I did:

              $: locate ubuntu

              I tried to post the full list, but this forum would not allow me to post it since it was roughly 100000 characters and this forum limits a post to 20000.

              I also did a locate for canonical

              mint@mint ~ $ locate canonical
              /usr/lib/guile/2.0/ccache/language/tree-il/canonicalize.go
              /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/friends/service/templates/com.canonical.Friends.Dispatcher.service.in
              /usr/share/apt-setup/release-files/archive.canonical.com
              /usr/share/apt-setup/release-files/archive.canonical.com/saucy
              /usr/share/apt-setup/release-files/archive.canonical.com/saucy/Release
              /usr/share/apt-setup/release-files/archive.canonical.com/saucy/Release.gpg
              /usr/share/dbus-1/services/com.canonical.Friends.Dispatcher.service
              /usr/share/dbus-1/services/com.canonical.Friends.Service.service
              /usr/share/dbus-1/services/com.canonical.RemoteLogin.service
              /usr/share/dbus-1/services/com.canonical.indicators.webcredentials.service
              /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas/com.canonical.NotifyOSD.gschema.xml
              /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas/com.canonical.Unity.Lenses.gschema.xml
              /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas/com.canonical.friends.gschema.xml
              /usr/share/guile/2.0/language/tree-il/canonicalize.scm
              /usr/share/man/man3/canonicalize_file_name.3.gz
              /var/lib/apt/lists/archive.canonical.com_ubuntu_dists_saucy_Release
              /var/lib/apt/lists/archive.canonical.com_ubuntu_dists_saucy_Release.g pg
              /var/lib/apt/lists/archive.canonical.com_ubuntu_dists_saucy_partner_b inary-amd64_Packages
              /var/lib/apt/lists/archive.canonical.com_ubuntu_dists_saucy_partner_b inary-i386_Packages
              Thought it was interesting that this was not modified to list mint...

              Comment


              • #67
                Mint should enforce their GPL rights, tell Ubuntu to put up or shut up,

                In my opinion, Mint should publicly refuse to pay a cent, publicly refuse to agree to a license, and dare Canonical to attempt to do anything about it. Any further aggressive move from Canonical should then be treated as a GPL violation, and if Ubuntu ever tries to sue, a countersuit should be filed alleging violations of Mint's rights under the GPL. We need to nip this shit in the bud.

                I'm just glad Ubuntu is transitioning to Systemd, so it will be easier to crossgrade an existing system originally installed as Ubuntu to Debian after the switchover. Hmm-that raises another thought: anything Ubuntu does to Mint could be done to Ubuntu by Debian with complete justification, but this should not be done before a serious attempt to enforce the GPL. Has anyone reported Canonical to gpl-violations.org for trying to demand a license to use software they harvested from GPL'ed sources and then claimed to also release under the GPL?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Why are people posting here as if all binary packages are built from copyleft GPL source? Binary packages that are built from BSD source can be licensed in any way that the builder wants. You can even make it closed source. Clement Lefebvre was wrong - the fact that compilation is a deterministic process is irrelevant. The Kubuntu maintainer is wrong; compiling a source package does give you additional rights - it creates a derivative work, and for non-copyleft sources that derivative work can indeed be licensed differently, it can even be closed source. You can absolutely take BSD source package, compile it, and sell the resulting binary as proprietary software.

                  Having said all of that, it doesn't matter here, because both Ubuntu and Red Hat allow their binary packages to be freely redistributed, with the exceptions of some packages that contain non-free firmware or trademarks. When it comes to trademarks, both allow redistribution of packages containing trademarks only if they have given permission. In the case of official Ubuntu derivatives like Kubuntu, they do have this permission, however, what they do not have (and, again the Kububtu maintainer is wrong on this point) is permission to sub-licence the Ubuntu trademark. So, yes you can base your distribution on Kububtu, but if you do so, then you need to strip out the Ubuntu trademarks. The issue with Mint is that it isn't an official Ubuntu derivative, so they don't already have a licence to redistribute packages containing trademarks, so they either need to get a licence or rebuild those packages. No big deal, as apparently they were offered a licence for a single digit fee. Btw they would be in exactly the same situation with Debian, Debian trademark policy also requires permission if you want to, for example, put "Debian" on a splash screen, or anything else that could suggest any endorsement or an association.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Luke View Post
                    In my opinion, Mint should publicly refuse to pay a cent, publicly refuse to agree to a license, and dare Canonical to attempt to do anything about it. Any further aggressive move from Canonical should then be treated as a GPL violation, and if Ubuntu ever tries to sue, a countersuit should be filed alleging violations of Mint's rights under the GPL. We need to nip this shit in the bud.

                    I'm just glad Ubuntu is transitioning to Systemd, so it will be easier to crossgrade an existing system originally installed as Ubuntu to Debian after the switchover. Hmm-that raises another thought: anything Ubuntu does to Mint could be done to Ubuntu by Debian with complete justification, but this should not be done before a serious attempt to enforce the GPL. Has anyone reported Canonical to gpl-violations.org for trying to demand a license to use software they harvested from GPL'ed sources and then claimed to also release under the GPL?
                    According to current legal thinking, the GPL is compatible with trademarks, even to the extent of combing GPL binaries with trademark logos, see Mozilla's explanation:

                    Isn't having the logo files under a different license incompatible with the GPL?

                    First off, the Mozilla Foundation binaries are distributed under MPL terms, so this question doesn't arise in practice.

                    But, even if it did, we don't believe it's incompatible with the GPL anyway. We are following the interpretation that the logo files are not part of the program itself (e.g., the Firefox browser), they are simply data used by that program, and changing the logo data has absolutely no effect on the functional use of the program. We therefore believe that licensing of the logo files themselves is outside the scope of any GPL terms that might be applied to other Mozilla source files (i.e., under the Mozilla tri-license).

                    This position is consistent with comments on the FSF web site regarding GPL compatibility of a particular font license; see the entry in the FSF's GPL-incompatible license list regarding the Arphic Public License. However in the GPL FAQ the FSF does not address this issue explicitly.
                    I find it curious that the GPL FAQ doesn't mention trademarks at all. But regardless, at this point there are many GPL projects that utilise trademarks.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Btw the "GPL licence does not convey a trademark licence" has actually been upheld in court (albeit a German one) see http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...8-2afba447b1e3

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X