Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
I didn't say anything about getting the first copy. What I am saying
is that the GPL forbids restrictions that could keep someone from
redistributing their copy after they get it and there is no
distinction in that regard whether the binary or source is involved.
Copy of the entire product is not bound by a single license. You are
conflating two different things. Let's assume that what you claim is
true. Even then, GPL is only a copyright license and applies only to
selective components within the product. Red Hat still has its own
trademarks on the product and Red Hat decides (within free use
limitations) how that trademarks should be used. It is not free for all.
So if I'd like to circumvent GPL requirements, all I have to do is add a
trademarked item to it?
I do think that if there is a penalty involved for redistributing
copies of GPL'd code, binary or not, it conflicts with the 'no
additional restrictions' clause of the GPL. If they apply this
restriction only to the non-GPL components, that would be different,
but I don't know if that is the case.
The conflict in only in your mind. Without the subscription agreement,
you don't get the initial binaries and you are only guaranteed ongoing
updates from Red Hat if you agree to it. The requirements of GPL is
orthogonal to this since this is a additional service as Gregory Maxwell
has indicated to you as well with other examples.
The GPL says 'any further restrictions'. It doesn't say some kinds of
restrictions are OK and some not.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
