[ale] Red Hat and the GPL

[Bob Toxen]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 11:57:33AM -0500, Chris Ricker wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Bob Toxen wrote:

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

> Again, it's not. You're claiming that the mere presence of a GPL'ed binary
> on a CD makes that CD GPLed. It doesn't, and nothing in the GPL says that it
> does. My Microsoft Services for Unix 3.0 CD has gcc on it. It has the gcc
> source code as well, so is fully GPL-compliant, but I certainly can't
> legally give you a copy of that CD. I can give you a copy of gcc, and the
> source code to gcc, but I can't give you the rest of the disk. Ditto my
> Solaris CDs, which have gzip on them.... This is why SuSE hasn't distributed 
> ISOs for their distribution since the days when they were a reseller / 
> translater of Slackware. They don't legally have to, just like Microsoft 
> or Sun or Red Hat don't have to.... Mere side-by-side presence does not 
> constitute mixing.
I don't want to continue beating a dead horse.  However, you did take my
words out of context.  I took great pains to explain that *intertwining*
Open Source software with other software makes it all Open Source.  I never
claimed that the mere presence of some of each on a CD makes it all Open
Source.

> > The copyright owner may charge any amount of money or impose any
> > conditions before someone is allowed to make copies.

> Just as an aside, even this isn't true. At least in the US, courts can find
> unreasonable conditions not enforceable.
While California courts will do such things, this is Federal law and such
damages usually ARE upheld.

> > 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.)

> You're still mixing two different issues here. That's trademark law which
> says you can't take RHEL source, rebuild it, and call the result RH, which
> is why you have to separate out trademarks. Licensing (the GPL) is what says
> you can take RH source and rebuild it.

The GPL says that one cannot impose additional restrictions on Open Source
software.  By intertwining Trademark images with Open Source, Red Hat makes
it very difficult for someone receiving such a package to redistribute the
Open Source.

> > > > 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.

> RH's defined the terms under which you have the right to access their
> service. It has nothing to do with the GPL. They give you access to the
> GPL'ed code in better-than-full compliance with the terms of the GPL
> (ftp.redhat.com), and they also give paying customers additional services
> above and beyond what the GPL requires (RHN).  If you chose not to pay for
> those services, or don't like the terms under which they're offered, RH's
> legal requirements due to the GPL are still met by ftp.redhat.com.

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

> FWIW, I actually have discussed this with legal counsel on behalf of a 
> couple of clients. You might also consider the fact that RH has run all 
> their situations by the general counsel for the FSF to verify that the Gnu 
> Project is satisfied that they're legal (which certainly doesn't imply that 
> the FSF is happy about it, just that it's legal in their opinion)
Assuming that a Red Hat PR person's claim is accurate and the FSF counsel
didn't say something like "we think your contract is legal but you would
have no legal recourse against someone who redistributed RH", it would
appear that I am wrong.

> later,
> chris

Bob