[ale] Red Hat and the GPL

[Bob Toxen]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 02:28:55PM -0500, Chris Ricker wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, James P. Kinney III wrote:

> > As I read the EULA, RedHat is not in violation of the GPL. The
> > distribute the source with the binaries, the don't restrict the use of
> > the binaries. What the restrict is the use of their network access. They
> > do restrict the use of the RedHat name and logo. As such, there is a
> > single package that contains all of the RedHat branding. If that package
> > is removed, The EULA does not restrict the redistribution of the entire
> > RHEL. But it is not legal to call it RHEL.

> And some people, perfectly legally, do take the source to Red Hat Enterprise 
> Linux minus trademarked RH images, rebuild it, and redistribute it under 
> another name....
You're missing my point.

Entwining "stuff" with GPL'ed code makes the result GPL'ed according
to the GPL.  ***THIS*** is why I think that Red Hat's action and licensing
is improper.  The GPL goes "out of its way" to explain this.

The GPL also says that one cannot place additional restrictions on anyone
who receives GPL'ed code via them.  Thus "per system" and "per seat"
licensing and fees of GPL'ed code (such as Linux) are not valid.

> later,
> chris

Bob Toxen
bob at verysecurelinux.com               [Please use for email to me]
http://www.verysecurelinux.com        [Network&Linux/Unix security consulting]
http://www.realworldlinuxsecurity.com [My book:"Real World Linux Security 2/e"]
Quality Linux & UNIX security and SysAdmin & software consulting since 1990.

"Microsoft: Unsafe at any clock speed!"
   -- Bob Toxen 10/03/2002