Re: RH and GNOME
> > Copyright, afaik.. And it could be "RedHat Linux" instead of just "Linux".
> > But since the distribution is already "RedHat Linux", nobody would notice.
> > This is merely conjecture. As I said in a later posting, I don't predict
> > RedHat doing something like that yet. But I think it's a good reference to
> > think at.
> The license does allow you to create derived works, but does it mention
> trademarks at all?
I wasn't aware that anyone owned any trademarks for Linux.
> As to this being merely conjecture -- I agree, so can we drop it?
> I enjoy being a Debian developer but lately all I read on debian-devel
> and debian-private is about how EViL the GPL is, how EViL RedHat is,
> how the sky is about to fall down, etc. Frankly this is really ruining
> things for me lately.
It didn't start out that way.. I made an innocent post and then was up to
my neck in pro-rh flames, when I wasn't even trying to bash them.
> I'm also a bit surprised how few people are actually listening to what
> Raul has to say about the KDE license. This seems to be a real, LEGAL
> problem -- not a moral problem, and independent of any feelings
> individuals might have about KDE itself.
As a complete turnaround, yes, there do seem to be significant problems
with KDE licensing, even if the GPL doesn't affect it as it's believed
(Which I don't believe it does, due to limitation of scope on the GPL's
definition of `program')
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com