Is linux free 5010
The only route that I can see to that conclusion from the facts stated is via your belief that the distro as a whole (and "therefore" ALL its components, according to you) is contaminated by GPL, and therfore the trademarked components fall foul of GPL
This is a VERY dangerous misconception. (ObDisclaimer: I unfortunately cannot speak to Canadian or B.C. statute or caselaw, per se...
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.
and maybe
Er, didn't *I* just get through referring to the "Rural Telephone Service Be careful: The term "compilation" is yet another...
7. ... If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
Good. You have my essential argument. Under copyright law a derived work does not modify the original. It contains the original. Thus if I take a...
But note that you have to get out of the follwoing in the GPL in order to establish your chain of reasoning:
... mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
I have heard you claim that you think the distro is not "mere aggregation", but I forget the details of the reasoning. I can see that you might claim that the binaries are deeply dependent on that kernel and that libc (in my expert opinion, they are NOT, since you can run them on a linux emulation layer in, say, freebsd, and you can use a different libc - I do!). Anyway, I do not see that logos are binary dependent on that environment!
You have maybe a stronger argument via this part of the GPL:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
That's the logos, I guess.
then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
Fine, but ...
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
which must be the basis of your argument.
It is Redhat that makes them more than "mere aggregation". It is redhat who claims that those items prevent others from copying or distributing the distribution. That they are on the same CD does not...
Peter
Linux groups from Newsgroups