On Friday 28 October 2011 18:54:25 Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Ned Slider <ned@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what
> >> you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to
> >> redistribute, given that the GPL prohibits additional restrictions?
> >
> > As I understand, Red Hat's AUP is more about protecting content other
> > than sources and binaries that resides on RHN (yes, RHN is far more than
> > just a distribution channel for SRPMs/RPMs). Such content and material
> > is vital in supporting it's customers, and I believe the likes of Oracle
> > and Suse were leveraging such content to try to sell support to existing
> > RHEL customers. This is what Red Hat presumably seeks to stop.
>
> OK, but then it should have specific exceptions for GPL content
> already 'protected' from such proprietary behavior and restrictions.
> What is the point of the GPL existing if companies are allowed to add
> restrictions when they redistribute?
But RH did not add restrictions. Whatever you get from them, you are free to
redistribute, in accord with GPL. There can be *no* *legal* *action* against
you if you do so. OTOH, it is their choice whether or not to give you anything
else in the future. GPL is not broken by the choice they make.
Of course it is a form of a blackmail --- "don't redistribute or we'll cut off
future support" --- but that is not in contradiction with the GPL, due to the
word "future". Rather, it seems to be a loophole in the GPL itself, and a
pretty nifty one, if you ask me. :-) Also, the essential idea of the GPL (that
source should be free) is preserved --- you can always take whatever has been
given to you through RHN and fork a project, without legal worry.
In addition, it appears that the business strategy of RH is essentially based
on this loophole, and now they are just pushing it to the extreme, thanks to
the challange from Oracle. It's a good business strategy, and personally I
agree with it --- RH has found a way to fight other companies from stealing
their work and customers, while upholding the GPL and giving a lot back to the
community through upstream patches and support of Fedora. Of course, there are
some collateral damage side-effects for the clones like CentOS and SL, but then
that's life, nobody is perfect... ;-)
Best, :-)
Marko
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
