On Thursday 02 June 2005 15:43, Les Mikesell wrote:
> 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? Since RH does permit source redistribution regardless
> 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.
'Additional restrictions' is meant to include things like:
1.) You can use my software under the GPL unless you're commercial;
2.) You can use my software under the GPL unless you are located in a country
allowed by the US;
3.) You can use my software under the GPL as long as you give me credit on
your website;
4.) You can use my software under the GPL as long as you don't try to design
software that competes with mine;
etc. These are the restrictions meant by the GPL; the FSF has in fact found
that Red Hat's SLA's don't violate the GPL, even though they're not terribly
happy about them.
Red Hat's SLA simply says 'you can use this software under the GPL.
Additionally, as long as you follow our contract, you can use the value-added
service of RHN to update your software.' The SLA does not restrict your use
or distribution of the software itself; it restricts your use of the RHN
service to conditions of the contract. If you break the contract, you do not
lose the right to the GPL covered software; it is still usable and
redistributable by you. You simply lose the ability to use RHN and get
updates (inlcuding major version upgrades like RHEL3 to 4 if you so chose).
However, there may be other penalties; but nowhere do those penalties include
the lose of the right to use or distribute the GPL covered software in RHEL.
--
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu
