No License Needed For Kubuntu Derivatives

[TheBlackCat]

They claim copyright on the binaries that contain code and/or themes provided by Ubuntu and where that is applicable. This is why they do not claim copyright for any package/binary, but for "many cases".

Please quote anything in the statement that says this.

Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks.

You left off the next sentence:

Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.

In other words, even if you remove all traces of Ubuntu trademarks, you are still not allowed to redistribute Ubuntu's binaries. You are required to recompile from source. So it is not just a trademark issue, they are also restricting the redistribution of trademark-free binaries.

[indigo196]

Red hat doesn't restrict the redistribution of compiled binaries, nor do they assert that those compiled binaries are under a non-free license distinct from the license of the source code. They restrict trademark usage, but the copyrights remain under free software licenses.

.

I found this on Red Hat's website:

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.

Sounds like they are claiming copyright in the same manner as Canonical.

I assume that is why CentOS recompiles everything.

I know Canonical allows redistribution of Ubuntu (as Ubuntu - not as Ubuntu +/- some component)...

I read this in Red Hat's official documents on the subject:

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.?

At least in the case of Linu Mint that I know it would be in violation of the above wording.

[who_me]

I don't understand. How can Canonical charge for Ubuntu when Ubuntu itself is based on something else? What exactly are they trying to charge for?

Canonical uses the Debian source packages and recompiles them, most of them. The kernel and other bits and bobs carry their (Canonical's) patches.

The Mint project, even if they don't use Canonical's mirrors still take Canonical's binary packages and redistribute them. That is why they want the Mint project to either get a license or repackage/host their own binaries.

Compare this to the CentOS project which mirrors RHEL, but they host the packages and also recompile them while trying to keep binary compat between the two. This ,if I recall, is changing somewhat as RedHat now took CentOS under their wing and maybe they'll help them with the infrastructure.

I wouldn't take Ridell too seriously in matters of licensing which lawyers are better equipped to tackle, but I would not say that Canonical is completely in the right either. I'm rather confused on how the terms of the GPL apply in this case.

[Pajn]

Red hat doesn't restrict the redistribution of compiled binaries, nor do they assert that those compiled binaries are under a non-free license distinct from the license of the source code. They restrict trademark usage, but the copyrights remain under free software licenses.

Of cource they do. How do you think selling open source programs work?

"Please buy this product, or just download it on TPB, we don mind."
Yeah, right.

[hiddenmaverick]

Similar to Parted Magic?

Isn't it a similar situation with Parted Magic? The author distributes the binary ISO for a fee but makes all the source code available to download to comply with the GPL. From what I understand, and as much as I disagree with the Parted Magic approach, the GPL allows binaries to be distributed for cost as long as the source code is made freely available and accessible. I'm no lawyer though.

[TheBlackCat]

Sounds like they are claiming copyright in the same manner as Canonical.

Claiming copyright and enforcing those copyrights on binaries are NOT the same thing.

[TheBlackCat]

Of cource they do. How do you think selling open source programs work?

"Please buy this product, or just download it on TPB, we don mind."
Yeah, right.

I challenge you to find anything in any agreement or notice by Red Hat that claims a non-free license on compiled binaries of FOSS software or that restricts the redistribution of compiled binaries of FOSS software on copyright (not trademark) grounds.

I used to think the same way you did, but someone here pointed out that this was not the case.

[Pajn]

I challenge you to find anything in any agreement or notice by Red Hat that claims a non-free license on compiled binaries of FOSS software or that restricts the redistribution of compiled binaries of FOSS software on copyright (not trademark) grounds.

I used to think the same way you did, but someone here pointed out that this was not the case.

Just read the thread

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.?

[TheBlackCat]

Just read the thread

Just read my post

I challenge you to find anything in any agreement or notice by Red Hat that claims a non-free license on compiled binaries of FOSS software or that restricts the redistribution of compiled binaries of FOSS software on copyright (not trademark) grounds.

(emphasis added)

[Pajn]

Just read my post


(emphasis added)

will not indicate or imply that your product originates from

This is not allowed by GPL and is therfore a rule that they can call thanks to their
copyright on the binaries.

Also try to downlod the Red Hat binaries without paying, you cant. Only the
source code. Why? Becouse they owns the copyright of the binaries and can say
so if they want.