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