GPL Licensing

[Les Mikesell]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> 
>> The question wasn't about buying it.  It was about the redistribution 
>> restriction attached that the GPL does not permit.
> 
> GPL requires that you will get the source if you get the binary but 
> there is no requirement that forces anybody to give you the binaries in 
> the first place including updates. So the subscriptions requirement are 
> in compliance. Again, there is zero requirements in any free and open 
> source license to give binaries for free to anybody because there is a 
> limit to which copyright laws can extend itself.

I didn't say anything about getting the first copy.  What I am saying is 
that the GPL forbids restrictions that could keep someone from 
redistributing their copy after they get it and there is no distinction 
in that regard whether the binary or source is involved.

> If 
> you actually believe that there is a license violation, feel free to 
> convince any of the developers of GPL licensed code that Red Hat 
> includes in RHEL or FSF itself. I am sure they would happy to tell you 
> exactly why you are wrong in detail if necessary.

I do think that if there is a penalty involved for redistributing copies 
of GPL'd code, binary or not, it conflicts with the 'no additional 
restrictions' clause of the GPL.  If they apply this restriction only to 
the non-GPL components, that would be different, but I don't know if 
that is the case.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com