[ale] Red Hat and the GPL

[Chris Ricker]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Michael D. Hirsch wrote:

> > 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....
> 
> Why take the source?  Aren't the binaries redistributable, too?  At least, 
> that's how I read the GPL.  Of course, that requires at least one license.

Like you said, that requires at least one license. There's also the matter
that it's probably legal, but a bit more gray.... If you're, say, a US 
national government laboratory (to use one example of an organization which 
is doing this), why take even the slight risk?

later,
chris