[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [ale] Red Hat and the GPL]]
Jonathan Glass
jonathan.glass at ibb.gatech.edu
Fri Dec 12 21:53:25 EST 2003
From the horse's mouth.
Jonathan Glass
-------- Original Message --------
Return-Path: <bcole at redhat.com>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [66.187.233.31]) by
katrina.ibb.gatech.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBCIbgDL024322
for <jonathan.glass at ibb.gatech.edu>; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:37:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com
[172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
hBCIbf225936 for <jonathan.glass at ibb.gatech.edu>; Fri, 12 Dec 2003
13:37:41 -0500
Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com
[172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP
id hBCIbf227172 for <jonathan.glass at ibb.gatech.edu>; Fri, 12 Dec 2003
13:37:41 -0500
Received: from redhat.com (bcole.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.57.89]) by
pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBCIbf6m028628 for
<jonathan.glass at ibb.gatech.edu>; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:37:41 -0500
Message-ID: <3FDA0AF5.4090400 at redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:37:41 -0500
From: Brian Cole <bcole at redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2)
Gecko/20030829
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Glass <jonathan.glass at ibb.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ale] Red Hat and the GPL]
References: <1071006052.21619.72.camel at ibb-250>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
katrina.ibb.gatech.edu
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=NO_COST autolearn=no
version=2.60
X-Spam-Level: *
Jonathan,
I am sorry I did not respond to you sooner.
In December 2002 we submitted a full copy of the RHEL Subscription
Agreement to legal counsel for the Free Software Foundation for review
along with our background explanation on how it is intended to work and
why we don't believe it violates the GPL. Outside counsel for the FSF
completed his review and concurred that there is nothing in this model
that inherently violates the GPL.
If you need further clarification let me know. Obviously our legal
counsel has reviewed all of our agreements before we used them. We are
not inviolation of the GPL.
Thanks,
Brian
Jonathan Glass wrote:
>-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: Bob Toxen <bob at verysecurelinux.com>
>To: ale at ale.org
>Subject: [ale] Red Hat and the GPL
>Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:51:39 -0500
>
>The individual copyright holders of the software that comprise the
>Linux OS and related user and library code should tell Red Hat: "NO!
>You cannot do that [putting restrictions on GPL'ed code] and must stop now!"
>
>"NO! You cannot distribute OUR copyrighted code on the condition that
>the Red Hat customer agree to additional restrictions such as:
>
> 1. Not distributing patches among all of your machines and clients.
>
> 2. Charging fees in excess of reasonable copying fees for distributing
> GPL-licensed Open Source
>
> 3. A purchaser of a Red Hat CD-ROM (or downloaded CD-ROM image) cannot
> distribute it "because of red hat trademark logos".
>
>Red Hat currently is doing these things and I think that this constitutes
>copyright infringement in that they are using copyrighted code in ways
>clearly forbidden by the GPL.
>
>Have a look at the GPL at
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html
>
>as I did in preparing this email. It appears to me that Red Hat is
>in violation of the GPL for demanding these restrictions of its customers.
>
>The portions of the GPL that seem most relevant to me are:
>
> "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
> anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the
> rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for
> you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
> ...
> "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
> and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
> for a fee.
>Warranty protection means, I believe, that Red Hat may charge money for
>fixing bugs. However, it cannot put "per seat" or "per system" restrictions
>or fees on patches for GPL'ed code. I.e., they must make patches (usually
>engineered by an Open Source entity other than Red Hat) available for a
>low cost or at no cost.
> ...
> "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
> distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work
> based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the
> terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend
> to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of
> who wrote it.
>
>That requirement seems to make illegal Red Hat's published policy of
>forbidding others from redistributing "Red Hat Linux" in either original
>or modified form claiming that to do so would be illegally using Red Hat's
>trademarked images scattered throughout the boot process, documentation,
>and elsewhere. It appears to me the "These requirements apply to the
>modified work as a whole." requirement of the GPL expressly forbid
>this practice.
>
> "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on
> the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from
> the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program
> subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any
> further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
> granted herein.
>
>
>
>I suggest that we contact some of the copyright holders of GPL'ed code
>and see if there's agreement to contact Red Hat and tell them to stop
>their current practice as it is bad for Linux and the community.
>
>(While I consider myself more knowledgeable in contract and copyright
>law than the average person, I am not an attorney. Any statements by
>myself here are my opinion.)
>
>Best regards,
>
>Bob Toxen, CTO
>Fly-By-Day Consulting, Inc.
>
>Author,
>"Real World Linux Security: Intrusion Detection, Prevention, and Recovery"
>2nd Ed., Prentice Hall, (C) 2003, 848 pages, ISBN: 0130464562
>Also available in Japanese, Chinese, and Czech.
>
>http://www.verysecurelinux.com [Network & Linux/Unix Security Consulting]
>http://www.realworldlinuxsecurity.com [My 5* book: "Real World Linux Security"]
>http://www.verysecurelinux.com/sunset.html [Sunset Computer]
>_______________________________________________
>Ale mailing list
>Ale at ale.org
>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
>
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Brian S. Cole Phone- 919.754.3744
Account Manager Toll Free- 888.733.4281 x43744
East Coast Public Sector Cell Phone- 919.696.4395
Email- bcole at redhat.com Fax - 919.754.3708
Red Hat Academy Information: https://www.redhat.com/training/academy/
Red Hat Education Solutions: http://www.redhat.com/solutions/industries/education/
Have you heard about the exciting line of enterprise products from Red Hat?: http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/
Does your organization publish content online? Here's a solution: http://www.redhat.com/software/ccm/cms/
Available whitepapers from Red Hat: http://www.redhat.com/whitepapers/
Training available from Red Hat: http://www.redhat.com/training/
More information about the Ale
mailing list