On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
So which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being considered derived works with the same requiremnets?
OK you are really that stupid
the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits it.
On 08/16/2013 10:06 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
So which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being considered derived works with the same requiremnets?
OK you are really that stupid
the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits it.
You CAN distribute both the Source and the Binaries under the GPL. You CAN'T do that and be in accordance with the Terms of Service for RHN. So, you get to decide what you want to do. RHN is the customer portal that gives you access to help, updates, support, etc.
It is in accordance with the GPL and SUSE has the same kind of policies for SLES.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
OK you are really that stupid
the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits it.
You CAN distribute both the Source and the Binaries under the GPL. You CAN'T do that and be in accordance with the Terms of Service for RHN.
Really? Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into GPLed items? Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing is changed? If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH, could you ship straight RH binaries instead of rebuilding?
So, you get to decide what you want to do. RHN is the customer portal that gives you access to help, updates, support, etc.
It is all sort of a technicality anyway without an update source. Given the vulnerabilities that are always shipped, it would be somewhat insane to run the code at all without a reliable source of updates. Which I thank CentOS for providing...
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.comwrote:
<snip>
Really? Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into GPLed items? Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing is changed? If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH, could you ship straight RH binaries instead of rebuilding?
<snip>
The redhat-logos, redhat-release, and redhat-release-notes (if it exists) packages contain the trademarks that need to be changed at a minimum. I can't speak for CentOS but at Fuduntu we just replaced Fedora or RedHat with Fuduntu in the spec, or any patches whenever we came across it in addition to those three.
On 08/16/2013 12:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
OK you are really that stupid
the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits it.
You CAN distribute both the Source and the Binaries under the GPL. You CAN'T do that and be in accordance with the Terms of Service for RHN.
Really? Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into GPLed items? Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing is changed? If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH, could you ship straight RH binaries instead of rebuilding?
So, you get to decide what you want to do. RHN is the customer portal that gives you access to help, updates, support, etc.
It is all sort of a technicality anyway without an update source. Given the vulnerabilities that are always shipped, it would be somewhat insane to run the code at all without a reliable source of updates. Which I thank CentOS for providing...
There are a couple of packages that you have to modify to "distribute" as they are not GPL.
I was talking about in general terms and specifically about GPL items. Each program has it's own restrictions and license.
This is why we rebuild each and every program and redistribute those, then we only need to meet the trademark requirement. (and not the portal requirement or the RHEL EULA).
My point was, there are two things at play if you distribute the original content (either Binary or Source) and that is the copyright of each individual program and the license for access to the upstream services. You agree to both, not just the copyright. Others have also said this.
Here are the 3 things in play:
RHEL EULA: http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html
Trademark: http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/
Use of portals/content (RHN): https://access.redhat.com/site/help/terms
Of course, this list is not a compliance discussion area for upstream ... talk to your attorney if you have any questions :)
On 08/16/2013 01:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Really? Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into GPLed items? Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing is changed? If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH, could you ship straight RH binaries instead of rebuilding?
You're free to grep through the license fields in the RPM database to find out, for those packages which contain trademarks. I'm not going to do it for you.
If you only wanted a single shot at redistribution, and you didn't care about RHN, then you still can only redistribute binaries that have licenses that specifically permit binary redistribution, and only individual packages at that, since the ISO, as a collection, is a separate work (it's an 'aggregation of works' (an anthology, if you will)) for copyright purposes and could be under a completely different distribution-not-allowed license. There are some licenses out there that could be argued to only cover the source and not the binary translation (GPL does specifically cover the object code and executable forms, IIRC).
On 08/16/2013 11:06 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits it.
Les, binaries aren't derived works. They're machine-generated translations.
A derived work would be a change in the source code; binaries are direct machine-readable translations of unmodified source code.
And the GPL covers just the programs on the distribution that are, well, covered by the GPL at the source level. Mere aggregation doesn't mean the whole iso is under the GPL, only the binaries that are compiled from GPL source are. The copyright for the collection may prohibit distribution of the collection (in its aggregated form), but you might be able to distribute those individual binaries that are built from GPL sources; but you would violate your subscription agreement (a separate legal agreement and not part of the copyright license) if you did so. After all, the licensor of the GPL-covered program is in many cases not Red Hat; the subscription agreement is a contract with Red Hat and Red Hat alone.
The GPL is all about source code availability, not binary availability. To wit, see this section in the GPL FAQ:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfB...
And even https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ExportWarranties applies, as ITAR would represent a 'restriction' on distribution, no?
But again the GPL coverage doesn't extend to the aggregation in ISO form, only to the individual programs on the ISO.
Nothing in the GPL says that if you distribute the source to the public you must distribute binaries to the public; all it says is that if you distribute binaries you must distribute or include a written offer to distribute the source to the people to whom you have distributed binaries. This is how SuSE (to use Johnny's example cross-thread) gets away with not having public distribution of the sources for SLES (if you find the publicly available sources for SLES with updates please let me know, and OpenSuSE is not the same thing).
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
Nothing in the GPL says that if you distribute the source to the public you must distribute binaries to the public;
What about permitting redistribution? And if losing your RHN support as a consequence isn't a restriction that the "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." covers, then what kind of restriction could that clause possibly mean?
On 08/16/2013 01:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
What about permitting redistribution? And if losing your RHN support as a consequence isn't a restriction that the "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." covers, then what kind of restriction could that clause possibly mean?
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary
While it's not been tested in a court of law, and I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that if I were to redistribute a Red Hat binary RPM of a GPL package that I might not have anything to worry about. But I reserve the right to be wrong, and this is not legal advice, and I'm not willing to be a test case, either.
However, again, the aggregate work of the installable ISO is not under the GPL, and so you would want to check with your own counsel as to the advisability of redistributing the installable ISO. As the GPL states clearly: "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. "
On 8/16/2013 10:45 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Lamar Owenlowen@pari.edu wrote:
Nothing in the GPL says that if you distribute the source to the public you must distribute binaries to the public;
What about permitting redistribution?
redistribution of SOURCE. have you READ the GPL ?
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:01 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
Nothing in the GPL says that if you distribute the source to the public you must distribute binaries to the public;
What about permitting redistribution?
redistribution of SOURCE. have you READ the GPL ?
Please quote the section that you think exempts binaries. I'm not really a fan of the way the GPL prohibits many potential best-of-breed combinations of components, but I did read it...
On 08/16/2013 12:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
What about permitting redistribution? And if losing your RHN support as a consequence isn't a restriction that the "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." covers, then what kind of restriction could that clause possibly mean?
RHN support is not a right granted by the GPL.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Ian Pilcher arequipeno@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/16/2013 12:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
What about permitting redistribution? And if losing your RHN support as a consequence isn't a restriction that the "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." covers, then what kind of restriction could that clause possibly mean?
RHN support is not a right granted by the GPL.
The GPL works by taking away the rights it grants if you violate the specified terms. Not adding further restrictions is one of those terms. How is that not a "further restriction"? Or if it isn't, what would be?
On 08/16/2013 01:27 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Ian Pilcher arequipeno@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/16/2013 12:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
What about permitting redistribution? And if losing your RHN support as a consequence isn't a restriction that the "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." covers, then what kind of restriction could that clause possibly mean?
RHN support is not a right granted by the GPL.
The GPL works by taking away the rights it grants if you violate the specified terms. Not adding further restrictions is one of those terms. How is that not a "further restriction"? Or if it isn't, what would be?
The word "herein" in the GPL snippet above is significant. The GPL does not allow further restrictions of "the rights granted herein" -- i.e. the rights granted by the GPL. Since RHN access (and other benefits of a Red Hat subscription) are not granted by the GPL, restrictions of *those* benefits are not relevant to this provision of the GPL.
You're obviously free to disagree with this interpretation of the GPL, but I know of no case law which supports such a position.
-
Andrew Wyatt -
Ian Pilcher -
John R Pierce -
Johnny Hughes -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell