I believe this was hashed through earlier. The particular fellow at RH
evidently mixed up the GPL'd material with trademark matters. It is as
simple as that, then became more complex here.
Smitty
On Monday 17 June 2002 23:00, you wrote:
> The license which Linux is written under says that you either include
> source code or let them know where they can get it, that you don't make
> changes without acknowledging the author.
>
> Redhat does not want you representing yourself as an RH representative, or
> affiliate without having an agreement to do so. I.e. protecting their name.
>
> The GNU License says in part:
>
> " 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
> conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
> copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
> notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
> and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
> along with the Program.
>
> "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
> you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
>
>
> Myself I was so taken back by the statement that I thought wow this changes
> things, until I realized that they CANNOT implement Linux so that it
> violates the GNU license. Just don't walk around saying you are part of RH.
>
> On Monday 17 June 2002 22:24, Anita Pesola wrote:
> > Ok.....silly question time......I've been trying to ignore this thread
> > but this post got my attention.....since Linux itself is supposed to be
> > free, what's the big deal with unpaid for distros on new PCs? Or am I
> > reading this entire thing wrong?
> >
> > Please, no flames---I'm just asking a silly question. :-)
> >
> > Anita
> >
> > Justin Keyes wrote:
> > >On 16 Jun 2002, Seth Hollen wrote:
> > >>one question to everyone... from what I am reading it sounds as if I
> > >>build a box and buy a copy of RETAIL REDHAT 7.3, say from bestbuy, and
> > >>install it, THEN sell it, I am breaking the law.
> > >>is this correct?
> > >
> > >NO! That's the whole point this guy is missing! He wants to sell comp's
> > >with _unpaid-for_ distros copied onto them!
> > >
> > >If you want to sell a computer legally, why not buy the OS?
> > >
> > >To the original complainer:
> > >Stop spreading _complete_FUD_! If you are selling the systems, you have
> > >to abide by the rules!
> > >
> > >And BTW, there's no way in hell it would be more expensive than an MS
> > >solution.
> > >
> > >Justin Keyes / m9u35@yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 12:50:35 EDT