On Saturday 02 April 2005 11:05, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
> > >In effect the commercial distros companies are providing
> > > expertise not just software and they are fully justified in
> > > charging what ever they please. And you can have a completely
> > > legal parasitic existence by the above methods. In fact you can
> > > provide better services and charge more (after RTFM) than them.
> > >rgds
> > >jtd
> >
> A couple of points that you appear to have missed.
> The GPL concerns itself with source code. Not binaries, not
> support, nothing else.
Nope. You are eliminating the case of derived work. It does
concern itself with binaries too. A binary is a derived work of
the source - as are modifications, bugfixes, enhancements etc.
Therefore the terms of the gpl apply to the binaries too. Also
"distributing" includes putting a binary into a flash rom and
sticking it inside your gizmo and selling the gizmo. (I had too
do some talking with some distributors of embedded products here
on this issue.) This action (selling the gizmo) is distribution
and requires gpl compliance. Therfore source code must be made
available. You can make copies of the binary hex file from the
prom and use as you deem fit without any copyright violation.
Even if "opening this parcel means that you agree" to whatever.
The reason is that the gpl licence has given you a right the
moment the act of giving and taking takes place. Adding wrappers
- physical or software does not change the fact of distribution.
There is no way that anyone (RH, Novell, Microsod whoever) can
circumvent this - thank god.
>
> Linux distributors take the GPLed source, package it, build it into
> binaries, and test those.
> That is a service. RedHat et al charge for that service.
>
> When you "buy" RedHat ES/AS versions, you are paying for their
> compiling and testing services, not for the software itself. This
> _support_ purchase is a contract, which states that you may not
> install the software from those binaries on more than one system.
That is a violation of the gpl and will not stand in a law court.
I have not read the contract but if you have one please post it. We
can takeon redhat on this. The binary IS a derived work of the
source. If the source is gpld so is the binary.
> It has no conditions on the sources, other than the license the
> code shipped with (GPL/MPL/anything else).
>
> RedHat will not stop you from building your own
> RPMs from source, and installing those, so long as you do not
> redistribute RedHats trademarked material along with those.
If the logo is part of the binary there could be a potential problem
as you cannot compile in non gpl code along with gpld code. I am not
sure that the logo = code. My guess is that the court will rule in
favour of the logo and hold cloners liable if they do not remove the
logo. Which IMO is very fair to the trademark holders.
>
> If you do not want to pay RedHat, you can download their source
> RPMs and then build your own distribution. When you are doing so,
> you have to remove RedHats trademarks and logos, since you are not
> RedHat. You can replace those with your own logos if you want.
>
> Also, there is generally no non-copyrighted material in a Linux
> distribution. All the software is copyright to its author(s).
>
> > organisation for full driver support and manual reference. I am
> > not against companies that charge or make money. I try my best to
> > encourage people to buy legal software and did manage to convince
> > a few. I use legal software in my comps even though its very easy
> > to use the pirated ones. What I don't like is the unnecessary
> > hype about linux being free
>
> Linux itself is free to redistribute, as source code.
And binaries too as binary=derivative of source.
rgds
jtd