On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Daniel de Kok <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Daniel de Kok wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software..
> > >> it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update
> > >> service from Red Hat.
> > >
> > > But once you have retrieved the compiled package through a
> > > subscription, it is governed under the GPL, right? And the GPL does
> > > not allow for such restrictions.
> > >
> >
> > Not at all ...
> >
> > You have signed an agreement as to how you will use the software ON YOUR
> > machines as long as you obtain software from RHN without paying Red Hat
> > for each installation. There is NO RESTRICTION that you may not charge
> > for each copy of GPL software .. it is specifically allowed.
>
> True, but the copy that you retrieved is governed by the GPL, which
> gives users certain rights that can not be taken away by additional
> contracts (which would void the rights to distribute the software).
> The GPL is very explicit about this, and those licensing restrictions
> are imposed by the author of the software, and as far as I understand
> Red Hat can not modify the licensing terms of others with contracts.
> They can only do that for some non-GPL licensed software, and their
> own software/artwork.
>
You can argue this as much as you want... and if you pay enough money
to some lawyer they will agree with you on that. However, most lawyers
including the ones at the FSF do not agree. The purchaser got into a
service contract with Red Hat that Red Hat would offer the purchaser
compiled versions of the product. That contract also says that they
will pay Red Hat for every copy of the compiled executable installed.
They can give that executable to someone else, but they are supposed
to pay Red Hat for those copies also. These are not seen as
restrictions of rights on the user by the FSF because you have the
main thing the FSF wants you to have: The Source Code. And the
contract does not restrict your rights to edit, recompile, or
redistribute the source code. It even doesn't restrict you from
redistributing the binaries. You just promised you would pay for every
copy which is not considered a 'legal' restriction on your rights.
If you do not pay them, they have the right to require you to remove
those executables because you broke your contract with them. Again as
far as contractual law and the FSF faq's.. this is NOT an abridgment
of the rights that the GPL gives you and thus legal/
However, as with all things dealing with legal: GET A LAWYER!!!!!!!!
This is not binding legal advice. I am not a lawyer, do not want to be
a lawyer, and while my explanations were given to me by non-RH lawyers
several years ago.. I may have forgotten important pieces not worded
it in a way that is legally sound etc.
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
