GPL Licensing
Rahul Sundaram
sundaram at fedoraproject.org
Tue Oct 14 19:27:50 UTC 2008
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.
> 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. If you still have
trouble understanding this, feel free to consult with FSF and ask them
to explain it to you. It is a waste of time and off topic to continue
discussing it here.
Rahul
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list