[ale] Red Hat and the GPL

[Bob Toxen]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:38:26AM -0500, Chris Ricker wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Bob Toxen wrote:

> > 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.

> And where has this been done? You're trying to claim that throwing GPL'ed 
> code on a CD somehow magically makes that entire CD image GPL'ed. It 
> doesn't. The GPL is not that powerful -- no license is.

Actually, the GPL IS that powerful and that IS what happens.  This is how.
Under U.S. (and international) copyright law one MAY NOT make copies of
copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner.
The copyright owner may charge any amount of money or impose any
conditions before someone is allowed to make copies.  (This also what gives
Microsoft to impose the outrageous conditions on its EULA, such as random
audits, etc.  In this case Microsoft DOES hold the copyright to the code.)

If someone makes copies without permission they're looking at fines that
can be $250,000 per copy.  The GPL says that if you mix other "stuff"
in with GPL'ed code in a way that is not easily separated then it all
becomes GPL'ed.  (Separating Red Hat's trademarks is MANY hours of work --
I did it for a client.)  If the entity mixing does not agree to this then
they are in violation of Federal copyright law.  It's actually black and
white.  I quoted the applicable sections of the GPL in my original post
as well as the URL of the GPL.  You may find reading it to be enlightening.

> > 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.

> And again, no one's done that.

Red Hat's putting restrictions on the GPL'ed code received via the RHN
or on the Enterprise Edition, if it places ANY restrictions on subsequent
distribution or copying, IS in violation of the GPL.


If you don't agree, well, neither of us are lawyers so less just agree
to disagree and let the matter rest.

> later,
> chris

Bob