GPL Licensing
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Tue Oct 14 19:41:12 UTC 2008
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Copy of the entire product is not bound by a single license. You are
> conflating two different things. Let's assume that what you claim is
> true. Even then, GPL is only a copyright license and applies only to
> selective components within the product. Red Hat still has its own
> trademarks on the product and Red Hat decides (within free use
> limitations) how that trademarks should be used. It is not free for all.
So if I'd like to circumvent GPL requirements, all I have to do is add a
trademarked item to it?
>> 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.
>
> The conflict in only in your mind. Without the subscription agreement,
> you don't get the initial binaries and you are only guaranteed ongoing
> updates from Red Hat if you agree to it. The requirements of GPL is
> orthogonal to this since this is a additional service as Gregory Maxwell
> has indicated to you as well with other examples.
The GPL says 'any further restrictions'. It doesn't say some kinds of
restrictions are OK and some not.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list