Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option

[Lance Davis <lance uklinux net>]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Stephen Smoogen wrote:

> 
> 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'.

But that is not the point at all. You dont have to provide binaries under 
the GPL, but where you do you must also make the source available, 
Distributing source only is fine.

The point is that if the source is GPL then the binary produced from it 
must also be covered by the GPL, the source for that binary must be made 
available and the binary must be covered by section 2b of the GPL as in :-

<quote>
2.   * b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in 
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part 
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under 
the terms of this License.
</quote>

Arguably the whole collection known as RHEL2.1 _must_ also be licensed 
under the GPL because 

<quote>
GPL 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 
the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to 
any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either 
the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a 
work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with 
modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, 
translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) 
Each licensee is addressed as "you".
</quote>

so RHEL2.1 is a 'work based on the Program' because it is a 'work 
containing the Program' .

To quote again from the GPL 

<quote>
6.  Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the 
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original 
licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms 
and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the 
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible 
for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
</quote>
 
So - unless someone can argue that it is not a 'work based on the 
Program', which is clearly defined in section 0 to include 'a work 
containing the Program' then RHEL 2.1 is and must remain GPL.

'program' in this context could be taken to be any of the major components 
of Linux, eg the kernel, glibc etc.

I firmly believe that if you have bought RHEL2.1 from Redhat, then you 
have a right to install it on multiple computers and give away copies to 
other people. That right may not however include some of the packages that 
are included that are not licensed under the GPL, but under proprietary 
commercial licenses, for example the IBM JDK.

You are not however entitled to any support from Redhat for the copies 
that you have not paid licenses for.

The problem is that redhat muddy the water further by claiming that they 
can restrict the use of their trademarks in packages such as 
anaconda-images and redhat-logos, so even if you are entitled under the 
GPL to use anaconda (which is GPL) , you may not be allowed to look at the 
screen whilst you are doing so !!  Which in my mind is clearly an affront 
to the GPL and should have been squashed by the FSF as a 'further 
restriction on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein' , 
which is not allowed under the GPL.

Lance

-- 
uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.