[ale] Red Hat and the GPL
Michael H. Warfield
mhw at wittsend.com
Thu Dec 18 18:09:16 EST 2003
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 09:58:27PM -0500, Bob Toxen wrote:
> 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
Oh, what the heck... I came to this deceased equine flogging
late... Might as well add some fuel. :-)
> 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.
Sorry, Bob, but I got that same impression from your earlier messages.
It sounded like you were arguing that they couldn't restrict the redistribution'of their distribution because it contains GPL software. I was also under
the impression that the RedHat Enterprise stuff contained some non-GPL
stuff, so they could additionally restrict the redistribution of the
collection even though you and others are perfectly free to redistribute
the GPL portions...
I'm surprised nobody, in this long thread, quoted the GNU site
on all of this. They are pretty clear about it...
From the GPL itself:
] 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
] source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
] conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
] copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
] notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any
] warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of
] this License along with the Program.
]
] 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.
Nothing in there about a limit on the fee you can charge for
the distribution or the service. The term "fee" is only used three
times in the GPL and it's used to say that you MAY charge a fee.
It also uses the term "may" and not "must" in that you
"may" copy and distribute. It doesn't say you "must" copy and
distribute nor does it say anything about to whom.
] In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
] Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program)
] on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring
] the other work under the scope of this License.
So... The presence of GPL software does not taint the non-GPL
software in a collection and nothing in the GPL forces you to distribute
it nor does it restrict your rights to charge for it (either the non-GPL
software or the GPL software). The only thing it DOES say that if you
DO distributed it, then you must also distribute the sources.
GNU GPL FAQ:
For instance, on the issue of charging money...
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney>
] * Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
]
] Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies
] is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special
] situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The
] one exception is the required written offer to provide source code
] that must accompany binary-only release.)
]
] * Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program
] from my site?
]
] Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the
] program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide
] "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to
] download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
Interesting point... You can even charge for downloading the
sources, you just can't charge more. Now, it's not clear if that means
separately or collectively (i.e. $10 to download binaries plus $10 to
download sources vs $20 to download either or both).
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CompanyGPLCostsMoney>
] * I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program,
] and it costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not
] making it available on the Internet?
]
] No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for
] distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to
] redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even
] if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes,
] the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular,
] or any other person in particular.
]
] What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute
] a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does
] distribute a copy program to someone, that someone can then
] redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.
I think it's clear that anyone is free to redistribute any of
the GPL components from the RedHat distribution (agregation / collection).
On combining GPL programs with other programs (as distributions)...
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation>
] * What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two
] modules into one program"?
]
] Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on
] the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they
] are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case,
] if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on
] the other program.
]
] Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they
] form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL,
] the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you
] can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.
]
] What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a
] legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe
] that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of
] communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared
] address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication
] (what kinds of information are interchanged).
]
] If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are
] definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to
] run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely
] means combining them into one program.
]
] By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
] communication mechanisms normally used between two separate
] programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules
] normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the
] communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal
] data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two
] parts as combined into a larger program.
Ok... So even separate programs that communicate over pipes
and such are separate and don't have to be GPL all the way.
> > > 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.
It's clear that the GPL places no such restrictions and is even
spelled out on their site.
> > > 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 does not require that you distribute anything. It only
requires that if you distribute the binaries then you must distribute the
sources as well under equitable terms. It does not restrict your ability
to charge. It does not restrict your ability to agregate.
Nothing in the GPL says they have to make it EASY to redistribute,
either. You can agregate GPL and non-GPL software and state that the
non-GPL software may not be redistributed. The onus is on you to
separate out the GPL software you want to redistribute. That goes
right down to install scripts and packaging (which, I would assume, the
RedHat installs would be RedHat proprietary and not GPL). You can use
non-GPL tools to install GPL software. You can redistribute the GPL
software. None of those rights have been violated. You can redistribute
the GPL components all you like. But the other intellectual property is
not covered by the GPL and can be restricted. There is also no requirement
that, if you redistribute some of the GPL software, you must redistribute
all of the GPL software. You can strip it down and redistribute whatever
subset you like, as long as binaries get their sources along as well.
They're just saying you can't redistribute the non-GPL stuff and the GPL
doesn't address that at all.
> > > > > 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.
Judging solely by the GNU site itself, I would say that RedHat
has their bases covered very well and from multiple vectors.
> > later,
> > chris
> Bob
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
Mike
--
Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw at WittsEnd.com
/\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Ale
mailing list