Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option

[John <spam debian merseine nu>]

On Monday 01 September 2003 07:00, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> 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.

What I, and many others, believed is that they cannot restrict recipients'  
use or redistribution of those binaries.

If, in order to continue to use those programs (or to use them on more 
computers)  without paying those support fees, then it's clearly economic to 
rebuild from source.

In some cases it still seems clear that our rights are unimpeded:
"* The Apache Software License, Version 1.1
 *
 * Copyright (c) 2000-2003 The Apache Software Foundation.  All rights
 * reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:...."




-- 
My bits for Taroon: http://debian.merseine.nu/taroon/