From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>
> Let me ask again... What could possibly impose a restriction if you
> don't the consider the penalties of contract breakage to be a
> restriction?
I think one point that is being missed is that one licenses
the subscription and any services the license it entitles one to,
and not the software. So if one breaks the contract, one is not
breaking the contract on the software, but the license for those
entitlements to the subscription/services.
As far as the trademarks and art goes, Red Hat doesn't care
as long as you are not redistributing them to other entities.
That was the whole reason for the several revisions and
clarifications of the "Red Hat(R)" trademark prior and the
eventual switch to _only_ allow redistribution of the "Fedora(TM)"
trademark by other parties.
> Since RH does permit source redistribution regardless
Don't confuse external with internal redistribution. When you
redistribute Red Hat Enterprise Linux internally, you are not
publicly distributing "Red Hat(R)" without a license.
The GPL itself actually works very similar. You can mix GPL
and non-GPL code freely, as long as you don't publicly redistribute
it. This is how corporations modify GPL software all-the-time
without releasing the source code of their modifcations.
In my standard license terminology for corporate legal departments,
I call this "Sourceware" (Open Source, Proprietary Standard). It is
GPL code that has been modified with proprietary code, so it can
never be redistributed. Because under the terms of the GPL, if it
is redistributed, then any and all modifications to the source will
have to be as well.
I can copy anything "Red Hat(R)" to my hearts content as long
as I don't publicly redistribute it. Because I'm not redistributing
their trademark without a license.
> and hence the existence of projects like Centos, they are not
> strictly breaking the GPL here, but if that contract isn't a
> restriction I'd like someone to explain what would be in the
> sense excluded by the GPL.
The contract doesn't cover the software.
And regardless of a contract or not, you do _not_ have rights
to redistribute "Red Hat(R)" any more than "Mandrake(R),"
"SuSE(R)," "Novell(R)," etc...
Red Hat tried to clarify its trademark guidelines on "Red Hat(R)"
several times to allow for Cheapbytes and other, 100% unmodified
redistribution. But eventually the entire issue came to a head,
and US Trademark Common Law is rather non-forgiving on Red Hat's
past history of allowing its trademark to be freely redistributed.
The reason why GPL is enforceable is because it doesn't take away
copyright. In the same regard, the GPL does not take away any
other rights to IP. Now should any copyright clarify that he/she will
not allow any trademark or other IP restrictions on redistribution of
their GPL, then pretty much _every_ commercial distro is going to be
SOL.
> I'm not a particular fan of the GPL. I just don't see how it works
> to distribute GPL'd stuff along with a contract that imposes additional
> restrictions and penalties for breaking them.
Because the contract does not tell you what you can and can't do
with GPL software. It only specifies what you can do with things
bundled with that GPL software -- namely the trademarks.
Since the trademarks are not required for the software to function,
there is no violation of the GPL terms.
_Furthermore_, if you read the GPL carefully, it _never_ says what
limits you can and can't place on _binaries_. It only says _source_.
It says you must provide the source to anyone you redistribute the
software to (in whatever form that software may be).
This is Stallman's "Moral Delima" at its finest.
Several GPL products exist where the vendor does _not_ provide
you with the binary redistribution for free, or even the source for that
matter, but the source is included with the binary distribution --
"for a nominal fee."
This is one of the reasons why people fear the GPL 3.0 license might
change some minor things that will affect them majorly.
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx
