On Friday 28 October 2011 20:45:16 Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That logic depends on a very strange interpretation of the term
> "restriction". The GPL doesn't narrowly define it narrowly as legal
> actions, it says you may not impost any further restrictions.
True, and that is why it is a loophole. You can interpret the word
"restriction" in more than one way. IIUC, RH's interpretation is that
"restriction" is something that is "against the law" if violated, in the sense
that you can get sued by someone if you redistribute RH's code. There are no
restrictions by RH, in that sense.
Whether or not this interpretation was meant when GPL was designed is an
entirely different matter. IMHO, the FSF should have been more specific about
what "restriction" means in the text of the GPL. But they weren't, and now RH
has used this room to manouver around.
But I don't see it as a bad thing, all in all. If you want support from RH,
pay for it. If not, use CentOS or some other clone. If they fall behind in
providing updates, that amounts to the price that you didn't pay for RH's
support. I think that's fair, given that RH developers are the ones doing the
most of the heavyweight work.
Best, :-)
Marko
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
