[ale] Red Hat and the GPL
kaboom at gatech.edu
Mon Dec 15 12:35:21 EST 2003
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?
More information about the Ale