Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: Pirating Ubuntu?



 >From the horse's mouth - matt seems to have had the closest unofficial 
answer.  Now we all know the law :-). Regards... 



---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
From: Zak Greant via RT <[hidden email]> 
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 05:53:55 -0400 
Subject: [gnu.org #366712] Fwd: Pirating Ubuntu? 
To: [hidden email] 

Hi Kristian, 

I'm sorry to have been a bit cross in my prior response. Please let me 
assure you that you can find the answer with a few hours of research. 
However, a few hours is still a bit of time. :) 

> However, my question was in reference to a modified version of Ubuntu 
> that would be distributed by Best Buy? 

The answer is that you probably would not have permission to distribute 
verbatim copies of the distro. 

Let's walk through the logic. 

Assume that ValuSoft has distributed a modified version of Ubuntu that 
contains proprietary software (and that they have not violated the GNU 
GPL in the process of adding the non-free software.) 

This means that the distribution will contain a mix of free software 
(which you are permitted to redistribute, with or without a fee) and 
proprietary software (which you likely can't share.) 

If you make a complete copy of the distribution, you won't have 
permission to distribute the non-free parts and thus, the complete copy. 

Of course, you would have permission to redistribute the GPL'd parts 
because the GPL will have ensured that you have the right to do so (see 
section 6 of the GPL v2 and section 10 of the GPL v3.) If ValuSoft tried 
to take away your rights to the GPL-licensed parts, their rights to 
distribute the GPL-licensed parts would terminate. Interestingly, you 
rights to the GPL'd parts would be intact in the prior situation. 

In all this, Canonical's trademark is likely the most important factor. 
If ValuSoft is distributing a modified version of Ubuntu for commercial 
gain using Canonical trademarks, then Canonical will likely be having 
its lawyers talk to ValuSoft. See 
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

>  That becomes confusing for me 
> :-)  Let me know if this is also answered somewhere!  Thanks for your 
> precious time, as I am probably just as busy as yourself!!! 
> 
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8888563&amp;st=ubuntu&amp;lp=1&amp;type=product&amp;cp=1&amp;id=1211587312374
> 
> I am not a newbie to FOSS, and I defend the GPL where possible, as you 
> can see here: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CherryOS#Legal_threats

Groovy. I'm glad that I read this after writing a nicer response - I 
would have felt like a jerk for having given you a nicer response only 
after figuring out that you are a friend. :) 

-- 
Cheers! 
Zak Greant 
Free Software Foundation Volunteer 



-- 
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com 

Kristian Erik Hermansen 
-- 
CISSP, CEPT, CREA, CEH, Linux+, A+, QGCS, ACSA, this is getting ridiculous... 
http://kristian-hermansen.com

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
 


BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org