Is linux free 4980

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1. Underlined phrase has no obvious meaning. 2. Terms of the service agreement apply to the service contract, obviously. 3. If you believe RH, Inc. are in violation of any specific term of GPLv2 as to some particular copyrighted property, by doing or not doing something in particular, please cite specifically.

Clue: You can't.

^^^^^^^^^^

Underlined phrase has no obvious meaning.

If you aspire to say something meaningful, you might want to try being more specific. I rather think you're either confused or want it to work out that the entire distribution is subject to GNU GPL, which very obviously is not the case, and never has been.

Again, I am not clear on the specifics of Canadian Federal or B.C. provincial trademark law, but the USA's Lanham Act very clearly provides that you commit the tort of trademark dilution if your unauthorised competing commercial usage of someone else's trademarked phrases, marks, insignia, slogans, etc., in the same trade or industry are judged likely to mislead the trademark owner's customers into believing that the trademark owner endorsed or produced your competing goods or services.

(If it's services rather than goods being sold, then technically what's at stake is a service mark, not a trademark, but the collective term for both is "trademark".)

So, you could stand underneath Matthew Szulik's window and give away your unauthorised literal copies of RHEL all day long without violating trademark law. Your selling them under his window might well get you sued, though -- and lose.

The interesting case is your changing the names on everything to say "Scarlet Chapeau" (or the like) but not taking the trouble to replace all of the images derived from SRPMs redhat-logos and anaconda-images -- and then selling "Scarlet Chapeau" under Szulik's window. In that case, you would have barely scraped through without commiting trademark dilution, but would have violated the proprietary copyright licence on the images, as you would be making an unauthorised use of them.

Oh, please spare us the abused-martyr rhetoric. You'd lose. And deserve it -- if only for willful ignorance of the law.

1. Do we really have to explain this to you? It means that the Makefiles of many of the other packages, upon doing "rpmbuild foo", will try to pull in particular named files from those two SRPMs. Thus, merely yanking the files out without replacing them or editing the Makefiles will cause compiles to error out.

That doesn't make the other SRPMs derivative works of the two encumbered ones any more than a gallery painting becomes a derivative work of the paint factory's factory formula.

2. You very obviously do not understand the legal concept of derivative works. I'd suggest reading some caselaw.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Underlined phrase has no obvious meaning. If there's a specific third-party package in RHEL 3 or 4 whose copyright you believe RH, Inc. infringes in some way, please identify the particular package, the action RH takes to commit that tort, and what obligation to the copyright holder they thereby fail. However:

Please be aware that I can point you to each and every single GPL-licensed file in RHEL 3 or 4, in both source and binary form, and truthfully state that you, I, and everyone else already possess the right to redistribute those files if we happen to have copies of those files.

So: Your premise is fundamentally wrong.