Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option

[Stephen Smoogen <smoogen lanl gov>]

I do not see how it is immorale for them to tell you not to take their 
hard work and put it on as many machines as possible. They have given 
you the source code, and they have given you the instructions.. you can 
always remake everything to be your own distro of 'Enterprise' level 
linux from that.. 

I can not speak for the original authors of the GPL or the FSF.. However
go look through the archives of the various FSF mailing lists and news
groups and see what the usual response for people who said it was
imoral/hypocritical/illegal/etc for FSF to provide the source code and
not compiled binaries back in the late 1980's and early 1990's.  

My memory was that the gist was 'stop your wining.. you have a computer
and compile it just as easily as we can or you can pay someone to do it
for you'.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 shane stixrud org wrote:

>On 31 Aug 2003, Féliciano Matias wrote:
>
>> 
>> For me, this is clearly violating GPL.
>> A GPL/BSD program, in binary or source form, can be freely (as in beer
>> and speech) used. I can copy it to another machine and use it.
>
>I believe the only GPL requirement that RedHat must comply 
>with is to provide source code on request.  I have seen nothing in the GPL 
>which states binaries created from GPL source cannot be restricted in use, 
>so long as source is provided on request.  Whether this act is moral is 
>totally a different question, whether the authors of the GPL intended this 
>use I do not know, but my reading of the GPL suggests RedHat has the 
>"legal" right to do this.
>
>
>--
>Taroon-beta-list mailing list
>Taroon-beta-list redhat com
>http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-beta-list
>

-- 
Stephen John Smoogen            smoogen lanl gov
Los Alamos National Labrador  CCN-5 Sched 5/40  PH: 5-8058
Ta-03 SM-261  MailStop P208 DP 17U  Los Alamos, NM 87545
-- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka --