No License Needed For Kubuntu Derivatives

[TheBlackCat]

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

No, this is a trademark restriction, which has absolutely nothing to do with copyrights.

Also try to downlod the Red Hat binaries without paying, you cant. Only the
source code. Why?

Because their servers are restricted to paying customers.

[indigo196]

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.

Can you point me to any agreement or notice by Canonical which claims a non-free license on compiled binaries of FOSS software or that restricts the redistribution of compiled binaries of FOSS software on the grounds of copyrighted binaries?

[TheBlackCat]

Can you point me to any agreement or notice by Canonical which claims a non-free license on compiled binaries of FOSS software or that restricts the redistribution of compiled binaries of FOSS software on the grounds of copyrighted binaries?

I already did. Here it is again:

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

(emphasis added)
In other words, even if you remove all traces of Ubuntu trademarks, you are still not allowed to redistribute the binaries.

[indigo196]

I already did. Here it is again:

(emphasis added)
In other words, even if you remove all traces of Ubuntu trademarks, you are still not allowed to redistribute the binaries.

How would you remove the trademarked content from a binary w/o recompiling it?

[TheBlackCat]

How would you remove the trademarked content from a binary w/o recompiling it?

.deb files aren't black boxes. It can be as easy as replacing some image files in an archive.

[indigo196]

.deb files aren't black boxes. It can be as easy as replacing some image files in an archive.

If I understand what you are referring to this would be a case where a binary refers to an image file or text file that is on the local drive; is that correct? Are we sure that Canonical is speaking about these and not cases in which the material is compiled in the binary? Are there cases in which the IP is embedded in the binary?

[who_me]

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

They have no one to enforce them against.

[Pajn]

No, this is a trademark restriction, which has absolutely nothing to do with copyrights.

As I said, this is a restriction that isn't allowed by GPL. They can only enforce that restricition
by enforcing copyright on the binaries.

Because their servers are restricted to paying customers.

Whatever theair reason it, protecting their trademark or only want paying customers leeching
off ther bandwitch this is still an enforcment of copyright on the binaries.

This is were licenses for software (like GPL) and licenses f?r other stuff (like CC) differ.
GPL distinguish between source and binary while CC would treat the binary as derative
work like anything else.

[GreatEmerald]

As I said, this is a restriction that isn't allowed by GPL. They can only enforce that restricition
by enforcing copyright on the binaries.

Which part of the GPL, exactly, doesn't allow trademark enforcement?

[Pajn]

Which part of the GPL, exactly, doesn't allow trademark enforcement?

It allows trademark enforcement. But it doesn't allow this specific rule

will not indicate or imply that your product originates from

With GPL you can always say "I forked that project to create this".
Indicating or implying were your code orginates from would include the
copyrightheaders in the sourcecode. Removing those could be seen as
claiming copyright of the things wou don't own wich means a very real
risk that the real copytightholder sues you.