On Thursday 02 June 2005 18:12, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I don't particularly agree with it - I'm just reading what it says,
> and 'no additional restrictions' seems pretty clear. If someone
> adds their trademark to something that becomes a derivative work
> of something carrying the GPL, they should either not be able to
> distribute at all, or they have to allow redistribution. Things
> that aren't embedded in a GPL work would be different, like artwork
> that happens to be on the same disk and there is no requirement to
> make it easy to separate the 'merely aggregated' parts, though.
Have you actually read the SLA?
Quoting (and trying to stay within the 'Fair Use' quoting rules...) the Red
Hat SLA for the US for Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (a registered trademark of
Red Hat Software, Inc.):
"If Customer makes a commercial redistribution of the Software, unless a
separate agreement with Red Hat is executed or other permission granted, then
Customer must modify any files identified as "REDHAT-LOGOS" and
"anaconda-images" to remove all images containing the "Red Hat" trademark or
the "Shadowman" logo. Merely deleting these files may corrupt the Software."
Earlier in the agreement:
"1. The Software. Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Red Hat Applications (the
"Software") are either a modular operating system or application consisting
of hundreds of software components. The end user license agreement for each
component is located in the component's source code. With the exception of
certain image files identified in Section 2 below, the license terms for the
components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component,
in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit
Customer's rights under, or grant Customer rights that supersede, the license
terms of any particular component."
Yes, Virginia, you can redistribute binaries, as long as the Red Hat
Trademarks are not included. That means you cannot redistribute verbatim
ISO's because they include the trademark covered image files. Notice that
the files in question are part of a package whose license is not GPL, and
that the trademarked images do not appear in any package that is covered by
the GPL. Check it for yourself. And the GPL states that mere aggregation is
not making a derivative work, right?
Even earlier in the agreement:
""Software" means the software purchased under this Agreement, which is
provided under Red Hat's trademarks and is subject to the applicable end user
license agreement."
Simple enough. The part most people don't like:
"The Support Services purchased by Customer are intended for use only for the
benefit of the Customer and only for the Installed Systems with
subscriptions. Customer may not use one subscription for Services for more
than one Installed System. Any unauthorized use of the Services will be
deemed to be a material breach of this Agreement."
Earlier in the agreement:
""Support Services" means the support services provided with the purchased
subscription as further defined in this Agreement."
That is, Support Services!=Software, right?
What happens if you are found to be in Material Breach of the agreement? Red
Hat Says:
"1.2 Termination for Breach. Red Hat may terminate this Agreement (a) in the
event Customer fails to pay an invoice when due, (b) in the event Customer
commits a material breach of this Agreement and fails to remedy that breach
within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of material breach,..."
What is terminated? The agreement is:
"1.1 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for the duration of all
Services provided under this Agreement. "
What is the term for? SERVICES. What can be TERMinated? SERVICES. What are
the SERVICES? The RHN access for each Installed System. What cannot be
terminated because it's not covered by the term? The use of the SOFTWARE.
Read the agreement for yourself; it's publicly available on www.redhat.com; I
accessed http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States&;
to read it.
Now, as to the derivative work angle, remember that the kernel license carries
the exemption that merely using kernel services is not making a derivative
work. And the glibc package is NOT GPL covered, but LGPL covered. This
covers the biggest places where derivative work rights could be asserted;
neither apply the GPL to code that is linked to glibc or uses kernel
services. Now, track the X libraries and the other libraries found on your
CentOS system. To which ones are the trademarked images attached on an RHEL
system? Not to GPL covered ones. And, again, mere aggregation of two or
more pieces of software (all linked to the non-GPL glibc) does not make the
result a derivative work of any of its packages. The GPL itself says this;
read it.
So exactly how does Red Hat's SLA restrict your right to use, modify, and
redistribute GPL software? You can use the RHEL kernel and redistribute it
all day long. You can use. modify, and redistribute any component of RHEL
except the non-GPL trademarks all day long (note that the SLA covers the
'modified RHEL' case quite well: you install something that is unsupported,
or modify the system, then they don't have to provide you with Support
Services for that system (but you still don't lose the right to use the
software!)).
The non-GPL trademarks are not a derivative work of any of the GPL code in the
distribution. The only thing restricted is redistribution of the binary ISO
(containing trademarks of Red Hat Software, Inc). The ISO is a mere
aggregation and not a derivative work of the GPL covered software included.
If you want to build a binary ISO that does not contain the images that are
trademarked YOU CAN. You cannot use an RHN entitlement for that box,
however. Again, how does this restrict the use or distribution of the GPL
covered software in any way? Yes, I know, in order to get the ISO you have
to purchase the Subscription Service. Just exactly where does the GPL say
that you can't charge money for access to the software initially? Just
exactly where does the GPL require aggregations of GPL-covered works be
available to all in the aggregated form (the installable ISO and installable
binaries)? And just exactly how is restricting the distribution of the ISO
and of access to the RHN update service violating the GPL in any way by
adding restrictions to the licenses of the individual component software
packages of RHEL?
Having said all that, I'm glad CentOS presents a much easier choice. And it's
the choice I currently use. And voted for. :-)
--
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu
