Re: Red Hat CEO: Go Ahead, Copy Our Software

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Exactly my point.  Everything is about derived works.  So binaries
>> cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can
>> only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution
>> and that additional restrictions cannot be added
>
> *which restrictions from your fantasy are you talking about?*

I'm talking about the consequences Red Hat applies if you were to
exercise the right that the GPL says you have to redistribute copies.
 If  the threat of such consequences aren't a restriction, what would
be?

I realize that Red Hat does, in fact do more than required in other
areas so this is just a philosophical point, but I don't see how their
treatment of binaries meshes with the letter of the GPL.

I also realize that since CentOS and other derivative distros rely on
the 'more than required' parts (non-GPL'd parts, source in easily
reusable form, etc.), it could all go away on a whim, just like the
freely redistributable binaries did, so even if you are happy with
today's scenario, there's no reason to expect it to last.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos