[ale] Re: Red Hat scare tactics

[Michael D. Hirsch]

On Friday 17 October 2003 11:22 am, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
> > On Thursday 16 October 2003 11:59 am, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On the ROCKS mailing list I remember reading that they
> > > will be switching to their own build of RH ES from the
> > > .src.rpm files. They talked with Redhat and RH said this
> > > was fine with them.
> >
> > Yes, I've heard that from RH, too.  What I can't figure out is what
> > difference
> > it makes to recompile from source.  The GPL applies equally to all
> > derivative
> > works, whether source or binary, doesn't it?  Why not just use the binary
> > RPMs?
>
>  From what I understand ROCKS has to do this because they
> have to pull the Redhat copyrighted stuff out of the code so
> they can redistribute it. Make sense?

Nope, not to me.  If they distribute an RPM under the GPL then I can 
redistribute it.  That is what the GPL says.  If they put other things in 
that I can't redistribute they are violating the GPL.  

The GPL is a license.  It is a license that is based on copyright law, but it 
is still a license.  The license says that anyone RH gives the RPM to can 
redistribute it and restricting that right violates the license.

So if RH puts trademarked images in the RPM and then says that I can't 
redistribute the RPM because of trademark law, they have just violated the 
GPL.  If they want to not violate the GPL they must let me redistribute the 
RPM.

The final argument is that it should make no difference if I recompile the 
source RPM into a binary.  The resulting binary should be exactly the 
same--that is part of the value of RPMs, you can reconstruct hem from the 
source RPM.  So if trademarked images keep me from redistibuting the binary 
RPM, they should still be there after recompiling the source RPM.

Note that I'm talking about an RPM, not the entire CD.  Each RPM comes with a 
license, and if the application in the RPM is GPLed, the RPM, as a derivative 
work, is also GPLed.  It seems reasonable to me for the CD, as a collection 
of works, to come with its own license, and possibly it cannot be 
redistributed freely, but I don't understand the argument for individual 
RPMs.

Michael