On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>Content-Type=message/rfc822
>Content-Description=embedded message
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer+centos@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: kevin <kwood@xxxxxxx>
>Cc: centos@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Centos] Diff files to be made publicly available.
>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, kevin wrote:
>> However, can someone please explain the following line
>> from redhat-logos.spec in CentOS 3.1 SRPMS:
>>
>> License: GPL - CentOS logos Copyright 2003 and Trademark Definitive
>> Software Ltd
>>
>> I hope CentOS is 100% GPL, open source software,
>> free for all men (and women) to copy and distribute at a small cost
>Copyright is not license.
Okay.
>Materials can be *licensed* under the GPL, and therefore freely copied,
>even when copyrighted. In fact, the entire basis of the GPL, as I
>understand it (IANAL etc. etc.) is copyright law -- someone has to hold a
>copyright on the material in order to have legal grounds for applying the
>GPL. If no one holds a copyright, then the material is in the public
>domain and the GPL is neither necessary nor applicable.
>It is true that in many cases the copyright of GPL'd material is assigned
>to the FSF or some similar entity, but that is not a necessary condition
>of licensing it under the GPL.
>*IF* there were a statement somewhere that explicitly *excludes* these
>images or other selected parts of CentOS from the terms of the GPL, then
>you might have grounds for complaint, but the statement that they are
>copyrighted does not AFAIK constitute such an exclusion.
I have no reason to complain about the work done on CentOS 3.1.
Its a necessary direction due to Red Hats chosen path.
>The effect of the copyright is that you cannot separate the CentOS logos
>from the rest of the sources and use them, independently, for some other
>purpose, without permission from Definitive Software Ltd. The effect of
>the GPL is that you can copy and distribute CentOS as a whole, even though
>it includes the copyrighted images. Do you see the distinction?
Okay imagine I have removed the images from CentOS 3.1
and replaced them with other images I created,
or with no copyright restriction.
Are there any other copyrighted parts to CentOS 3.1?
Is some of the code copyrighted also?
>(Again, I am not a lawyer, and the GPL has all sorts of other effects that
>might be construed to make it possible to re-use the logos.)
Thanks for the clear response.
Kevin Wood.
Looking for truth and clarity nothing more.....
but if you throw in a bonus, thats fine with me.
