Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option

[Stephen Smoogen <smoogen lanl gov>]

On 1 Sep 2003, Féliciano Matias wrote:

>Le dim 31/08/2003 à 23:45, shane stixrud org a écrit :
>> 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.
>
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
>------------------------------------------------
>0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
>notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under
>
>Are you saying that a GPL library in binary form is not GPL ?

No what is says is that they have to give you the source code and can 
not limit you from distributing that source code further. 

I faintly remember a long flame war in the early 90's where people 
bitched that the FSF didnt give out binaries for their applications for 
various OS's. The theory was that the FSF clearly had access to those 
machine because they sold the binaries on tapes, and that they tested 
that the applications on XYZ OS so werent they breaking the GPL by not 
giving out those binaries on the FTP site for everyone to get a hold 
of.. Other than FSF giving out binary compilers for Solaris 2.1 gcc and 
clearly explaining that they were only going to do that.. I dont 
remember them doing so otherwise.


-- 
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 --