Re: [tlug] GPL non-sense

[Shawn Brown <big.coffee.lover@example.com>]

> But that has no bearing on whether you can still distribute your original
> version.

Ok sure but is that why people gpl3 things - so they can use their own
work.  Or do they do it because they expect to be able to make use of
other's changes.

> Hmmm... Maybe I'm missing something. If their product is based on your
> GPLed source, they have to release the entire source to comply with the
> GPL license. If they're embedding something like their company name or a
> slogan into the source itself (as comments or as variable names) and they
> release that under the GPL, I don't think they can later claim trademark
> violation. If they're trying to game the license that way, I'd say do the
> work twice... release your own version without the embedded cruft. That
> will serve them right and, since it's all GPL, you're on firm ground.

That is not what Red Hat says.  Red Hat says you can't redistribute
their binaries (unless they give you permission - which they do for
LUG, non-profits etc.) or source with their logos

> If the embedded trademark is something generated at runtime, like a button
> with their name or slogan in the corner of the window, you should be able
> to distribute the source because their trademark doesn't show up unless
> you compile said source.

Well OK if that is true, then I don't have to worry about them
changing how we render graphics to include their trademark in clever
and unpredictable ways.

I don't see this in the GPL3 agreement though so am worried.

>> Sure if it's just replacing a few images I will have no trouble.  If
>> they decide to really go after it and modify the graphics rendering
>> then for all practical purposes their changes will be useless to me.
>
> And that's a problem how? If it's based on your source you should still
> have your original version.

I do have the original but that is not entirely the point.  If they
improve my original, I want to be able to use that too.  If they embed
their trademark in their improvement...

Well, I will plead my case with them not to make it difficult for me
and see where the chips land.

I guess I am surprised by this.

>> I guess GPL3 is not always the right choice but I don't know a better
>> one.
>
> I doubt any of the other OSS licenses would prevent them from gaming the
> system in a similar way.

Probably so.  I don't mean to be harsh on Red Hat because clearly they
are good for the linux eco-system.  Still that binaries and src
derived from my gpl3 code are not distributable by me (unless I change
them which I may or may not be able to do easily) is disappointing.
Now I know.

Shawn