[CentOS] Vote For CentOS :)

[Les Mikesell]

On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 15:22, Bryan J. Smith  wrote:

> > Of course.  What does an SLA have to do with restricting copying or
> > redistribution?
> 
> Because you're paying for services, not a product.

Can you get the product without being bound by the restrictions?  That
is, can one user purchase one and resell copies without the SLA or
with their own?

> > What kind of restriction would be excluded by the GPL if not ones that
> > restrict copying, installing on additional machines, or redistribution?
> 
> Public redistribution of the _binaries_ is prohibited because of the
> trademarks.  There is _no_ term in the GPL that mandates that anyone
> provide you with binaries or otherwise packaged software that is
> "ready-to-use."
> 
> This is the GPL.

The GPL covers anything that can be considered a derivative work under
copyright law.  That certainly includes binaries.  No one is obligated
to provide them, but they cannot prohibit copying or redistribution
as long as the requirement to include or offer source is met.

> At the same time, as long as the additives are not required for the
> software to function, Red Hat, SuSE, Novell, Mandrake, etc... are free
> to bundle whatever art, trademarks, etc... with the software, even
> the source code.  The GPL still only guarantees you the right to
> _source_ code redistribution without restriction.

No, it covers all derivative works. Otherwise it could not prohibit
distribution of something that must be linked to a proprietary
dynamic library to function.  Typically the FSF has claimed that
anything linked into a binary becomes part of the derivative work.

> If you want to play the trademark card, then you're going _outlaw_
> pretty much _every_ major commercial company from producing GPL
> software.  And Red Hat is the least of our concerns.  ;->

I don't particularly agree with it - I'm just reading what it says,
and 'no additional restrictions' seems pretty clear.   If someone
adds their trademark to something that becomes a derivative work
of something carrying the GPL, they should either not be able to
distribute at all, or they have to allow redistribution.  Things
that aren't embedded in a GPL work would be different, like artwork
that happens to be on the same disk and there is no requirement to
make it easy to separate the 'merely aggregated' parts, though.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   les at futuresource.com